1 2025:CGHC:46856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10848 of 2025 1 - Smt. Nirmla Rao W/o Late M. Appa Rao (M. Appa Rao Soni) Aged About 57 Years R/o Vill. Rajendra Nagar Ward No. 21 Bahadurguda Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G. (Name And Add. As Per Aadhar Card) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Chief Engineer (Administration) Public Works Department, District Raipur C.G. 4 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G. 5 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G. 6 - The Executive Engineer P.W.D. (Bh/sa) Division South Bastar Dantewada, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada C.G. 7 - Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension Bastar Division Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Govind Dewangan on behalf of Shri Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Shri Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 12.09 .202 5 1. Learned counsel for petitioner(s) submits that the petitioner(s) stood retired as Work Charged/Contingency Paid Employee. The petitioner (s) were 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 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.09.12 18:24:50 +0530 2 Faguvaram (supra) the petitioner(s) have raised identical issue which may be allowed. He submits that at this stage the petitioner(s) may be permitted to submit detailed representation before the respondents/competent authority, who, in turn, 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(s) is/are not pressing this petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner(s) 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(s), 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(s) to make detailed representation before the concerned respondent/competent authority. In the event, the petitioner(s) 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(s) 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