Chattisgarh High Court
Kheduram Gond vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 June, 2025
Digitally signed by
V PADMAVATHI
Date: 2025.06.19
18:39:52 +0530
2025:CGHC:25515
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5032 of 2025
1 - Kheduram Gond S/o Dheluram Gond Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Odan,
Post- Odan, Tahsil - Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
2 - Kumari Bai W/o Late Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 69 Years R/o Village- Kodwa,
Post- Sasha, Tahsil - Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Engineer-In-Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Nawa
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Executive Engineer Water Management Division No. 2, Balodabazar, District-
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
4 - The Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
5 - The District Treasury Officer Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Shri KP Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Shri KS Saini, PL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
18.06.2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are retired
employees of the Water Resource Department, and were working as Work Charged
Contingency paid employees. It is further submitted that in light of judgment passed
by this Court in WPS-3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel, and others Vs State of
Wps 5032 of 2025
Chhattisgarh and others), and other connected matters, decided on 30.09.2022,
present petitioners are also entitled for leave encashment.
2. Learned State counsel would submit 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 service to avail the benefit of leave encashment.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
4. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this
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 copy of this order with all necessary documents
to substantiate their claim. In that event, 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 in light of judgment passed in that
case expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of submission
of the said representation.
5. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation and
direction.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
JUDGE
padma
