1 2025:CGHC:41745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9497 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sima Rajak, W/o Late Shri Manok Kumar Rajakh, Ward No. 20 Civil Line Khairagarh, Distt.-Khairagarh, Chuikhadan, Gandai (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Finance, Accounts And Treasury, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Director, Directorate of Treasury Accounts And Pension Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhavan, First Floor, Nawa Raipur Dist. -Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, Chuikhadan Distt. - Khairagarh - Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 19-08-2025 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner worked as Work Charged/Contingency Paid Employee who died on 02-01- 2021. The husband of the petitioner was entitled for leave encashment but till Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN 2 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