1 2025:CGHC:27990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6257 of 2025 1 - Smt. Gayatri Yadav W/o Late Dhaniram Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o 75 Patnam Para Post And District Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. (Widow Of Deceased Employee) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Deaprtment, 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 (Administration) Public Works Department, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (Bh/sa), Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa), Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa), Division Sukuma, District Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.06.27 15:19:46 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Vikash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 26/06/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is retired employee of the respondents’ Departments and was working as Work Charged Contingency paid employee. It is further submitted that in light of judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected matters, decided on 30.09.2022, present petitioner is also entitled for leave encashment. 2. Learned State counsel would submit that sufficient documents have not been filed by the petitioner, and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioner has 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 petitioner to make a detailed representation before the concerned respondents/competent authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all necessary documents to substantiate her claim. In 3 that event, on due verification, if the petitioner is found to be similarly situated person, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), her 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, the present petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika