1 2025:CGHC:58915 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13602 of 2025 1 - Phool Singh S/o Sujan Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o House No.30, Premnagar Distt- Sukuma C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh 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 (bh/sa) Jagdalpur Distt- Bastar C.G. 5 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department (bh/sa) Jagdalpur Distt- Bastar (C.G.) 6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (bh/sa) Sukuma Division Distt- Sukuma C.G. 7 - Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension Bastar Division Jagdalpur Distt- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikas A. Shrivatava, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.12.05 11:25:20 +0530 2 04-12-2025 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired as Work Charged/Contingency Paid Employee. The petitioner was entitled for leave encashment but till date the respondents have not extended the benefit of leave encashment to the petitioner. 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 has 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 annexed with the writ petition. 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 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 his claim. In that event, on due verification, if the petitioner is found to be similarly situated person, as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), his 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. 3 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil