1 2025:CGHC:33664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7169 of 2025 1 - Ramadhar Yadav S/o Jhadu Ram Yadav Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Gumiya, Post- Pantora, Kanki, Distt- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Retired Employee Claiming Leave Encashment For Himself) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resource, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Department of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Secretary Department of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Engineer-In-Chief Water Resource Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Engineer Minimata Hasdeo Bango Project, Water Resource Department, Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Superintendent Engineer Hasdeo Project Circle, Rampur-Korba, Distt- Korba (C.G.) 7 - Executive Engineer Hasdeo Barrage Water Management Division, Rampur- Korba, Distt- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 Order on Board 17-07-2025 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner stood retired as Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee, petitioner is entitled for leave encashment but till date respondents have not extended the benefit of leave encashment to petitioner. Identical issue came up for hearing before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021, wherein petitioners therein have raised identical issue which was allowed in their favour. He submits that at this stage, petitioner may be permitted to submit representation in light of the decision in case of Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of C.G., in W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 decided on 30.09.2022 and respondents be directed to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner expeditiously within specified time. 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, he is having no objection. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 4. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner, this petition is disposed off permitting petitioner to submit representation before respondents authorities and if such representation is submitted by the petitioner, respondents authorities shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the representation. 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil