1 2025:CGHC:45631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6044 of 2025 1 - Smt. Triveni W/o Raj Kumar Aged About 45 Years R/o Vill. Pakela Distt. Sukuma Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Engineer PWD National Highway Division Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Engineer PWD National Highway Division Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Executive Engineer PWD National Highway Sub Division Sukuma District Bastar, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer PWD National Highway Sub Division Sukuma District Bastar, Chhattisgarh 7 - Senior Treasurer Officer Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 08-09-2025 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner stood retired as Work Charged/Contingency Paid Employee who died on 21- Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.16 15:27:48 +0530 2 01-2020. The husband of 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 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 husband 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 Aadil