1 2025:CGHC:7808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1200 of 2025 1 - Smt. Santoshi Singh Thakur W/o Late Prakash Singh Thakur Aged About 46 Years R/o Irrigation Colony Rampur Tahsil Korba District Korba (C.G.), Husband Of Petitioner Was Retired Dak Runner Posted At Office Of Executive Engineer Hasdev Barrage Jal Prabhandh Division Rampur/korba Water Resources Department Korba (C.G.). 2 - Smt. Dhanbai Yadav W/o Late Fulsay Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Bhatikuda Post Pantora, Tahsil Korba District Korba (C.G.) Husband Of Petitioner Was Retired Helper Posted At Office Of S.D.O. Hasdeo R.B.C. Water Management Sub Division No. 1, Pantora Water Resources Department District Korba (C.G.). ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resource Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Engineer In Chief, Water Resources, Depatment, Shivnath New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Chief Engineer, Minimata Hasdeo Bango Pariyojna Water Resources Department Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 4 - Executive Engineer, Hasdev Barrage Jal Prabandh Division Rampur/korba Water Resources Department District Korba (C.G.). 5 - Joint Director, Pension, Account And Treasury Department Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.02.19 11:20:54 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Ms. Nilu Kumari Singh, Advocate For State/Respondents : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that she is not pressing I.A. No.1 for exemption from filing typed copy as according to her she has already filed typed copy of the document. I.A. No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and be pleased to issue an order/direction to the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of leave encashment to the petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be call for the records for its kind perusal which relates to petitioner's matter. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that husbands of the petitioners were working as work charged contingency paid employees in the Water Resources Department. Initially, they were employed on temporary basis, thereafter, their services were regularised. After completion of age of superannuation, they retired from the services. Now they have expired. The respondents authorities granted pension and gratuity to the petitioners, but, benefit of leave encashment is not granted to them. It is the claim of the petitioners that in light of the judgment passed by this Court on 30.9.2022 in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected matters, the petitioners are entitled for leave encashment. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioners and it is also not reflected as to whether the husbands of the petitioners have completed the minimum period of service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 5. I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and perused the documents available. 6. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on merits of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make a detailed representation before the concerned respondent/competent authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with all necessary documents to substantiate their claim. In the event of filing of representation, on due verification, if the petitioners are found to be similarly situated persons, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), their claim shall be decided by the respondents authorities in light of the judgment of Faguvaram Patel (supra) expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the said representation. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh