1 2025:CGHC:8025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1199 of 2025 1 - Lakhandas Bairagi S/o Dhelu Ram Bairagi Aged About 69 Years A Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Village Alesur, Post Jara, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajuram Dewangan S/o Dukalu Ram Dewangan Aged About 72 Years A Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Village Korasi, Post Korasi, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Ram Khilawan Kannouje S/o Pachkaud Kannouje Aged About 63 Years A Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Village Sasaha, Post Sasaha, Tehsil Pallari, District Balaudabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - Derha Ram Satnami S/o Sukhru Ram Aged About 67 Years A Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Village Kusmi, Post Kusmi, Tehsil Pallari, District Balaudabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Accounts And Treasury, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.17 15:01:55 +0530 2 5 - The Executive Engineer Water Management Division 2, Balaudabazar, Dist. Balaudabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):- “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for all the records pertaining to the case. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/direction to the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of leave encashment to work charged and contingency employees on their retirement in accordance with the statutory rules, regulations and circulars issued by the respondent authorities and also based on the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court on 30.09.2022, in WPS No. 3870/2021. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/direction to the respondent authorities to take appropriate 3 decision within a reasonable period of time on the requests and representations preferred by the petitioners in accordance with the law and also based on the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court on 30.09.2022, in WPS No. 3870/2021 to grant the benefits of leave encashment to work charged and contingency employees on their retirement. (iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/direction similar to the order passed in WPS No. 3732/2023 passed on 06.07.2023 to the respondent authorities to immediately process the claim of all similarly placed persons in the light of the aforesaid decision of this High Court on the same subject- matter, within an outer limit of 120 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. (v) That any other relief/order which may be deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are retired employees of the respondent department, who were worked as work charged employees. He submits that in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected matters decided on 30.09.2022, the petitioners are entitled for leave encashment. 4. Learned State counsel submits that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioners and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioners have completed the minimum period of service to avail the benefit of leave encashment. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 6. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make detailed representations before the concerned respondent/ competent authority within the period of ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of 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 (surpa), their claim shall be decided by the respondents in light of judgment of Faguvaram Patel (Supra) expeditiously preferably within the period of ‘90 days’ from the date of submission of the said representation. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh