Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51462 (CHH)

SHASHI BHUARYA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/11737/2025 · 2025-10-07

Shri Parth Prateem Sahu

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:50122 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11737 of 2025 1 - Shashi Bhuarya W/o Late Shri Ishwar Singh Bhuarya Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 110, Ward No. 29, Lok Nirman Vibhag (B/r), Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Durg Division, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department Khairagarh, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Sub- Divisional Officer Public Works Department Sub-Division Khairagarh, Distt.- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 5 - Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Division Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Astha Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Sani, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08/10/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who stood retired as Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees, are 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 case of Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of C.G., in W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 decided on 30.09.2022, wherein petitioners have raised identical issue which was allowed in their favour. He submits that at this stage, petitioner may be BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.09 11:03:03 +0530 2 permitted to submit representation in light of Faguvaram Patel (supra) and respondents be directed to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner expeditiously within specified time. 2. Learned State counsel submits that as petitioner are not pressing this petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner/s, he is having no objection. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. Taking into consideration, the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty with the petitioner to submit representation. In the event, petitioner submit representation, her claim shall be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation keeping in mind decision in case of Faguvaram Patel (supra). 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. C.C. as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram