1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3541 of 2025 1 - Shailendra Kumar Namdev S/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Namdev Aged About 62 Years R/o House No. 296/2, Ward No. 10, Dumriha Road, Pendra Road, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) 495-117 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department (P.W.D.) , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department (P.W.D.) Atal Nagar Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department (P.W.D.) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department (P.W.D.) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Excutive Engineer (Pendra Division) Public Works Department (P.W.D.) District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) 6 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury. Accounts And Pension Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Treasurer District Treasury Gaurela Pendra Marwahi, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Rameshwari Kumari on behalf of Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Shri Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 09.06 .202 5 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired as Work Charged/Contingency Paid Employee. The petitioner was entitled for leave encashment but till date the respondents have not extended the benefit of leave encashment. He stated that an identical issue has already been decided by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.06.09 17:53:34 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh & Others) on 30.09.2022. In the light of Faguvaram (supra) the petitioner have raised identical issue which may be allowed. He submits that at this stage the petitioner may be permitted to submit detailed representation before the respondents/competent authority, who, in turn, may be directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously within specific period as fixed by this Court. 2. Learned State counsel submits that as the petitioner is not pressing this petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner, at this stage the State is having no objection. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, without commenting anything on the merits this petition is disposed of in the light of judgment passed in Faguvaram Patel (Supra) reserving liberty to the petitioner to make detailed representation before the concerned respondent/competent authority. In the event, the petitioner submits representation, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with the relevant rules and law and after verification of the service records of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within the period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of the such representation keeping in mind the decision passed in Faguvaram Patel (Supra). 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder