1 / 3 2026:CGHC:18082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3430 of 2026 • Smt. Savita Tandon (Suspended) W/o Satish Chandra Mahish Aged About 45 Years Occupation Supervisor, Department Of Mahila Avam Bal Vikas, R/o E- 10, Parshuram Nagar, Puraina, Post Ravi Gram, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Mahila Avam Bal Vikas, Through Its Principal Secretary, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Mahila Bal Vikas, Indravati Bhawan, Block- 1, 2nd Floor, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Programme Officer Mahila Avam Bal Vikas, Old Police Head Quarter, G.E.Road, Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 4. Pariyojana Adhikari Ekikrit Bal Vikas Pariyojana Shahri-2 Rohinipuram Near Gole Chowk Near Alakhnanda Tower, Raipur (C.G.) 492013 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Richa Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. S.D. Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 21/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.i Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction the earned leave in pursuance to her application and make the payment of salary for the period. ii. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while posting as Supervisor in the respondent-department was forced to take leave to attend her 13 years’ old daughter who is suffering from Chronic ITP Thrombolytic PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 Penia (deficiency of platelets). To take care of her ailing daughter with serious disease, she took leave for a period from 15.08.2020 to 19.09.2020 and from 04.11.2020 to 29.01.2021, for about 116 days. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application for grant of earned leave in prescribed formate for the said reasons. When the application for earned leave was not considered, petitioner submitted an application before Respondent No. 2 on 19.04.2022, however, till date neither the representation/ application was considered by Respondent No. 2 nor application for grant or sanction of earned leave is considered and decided. She contended that in the aforementioned facts of the case, direction may be issued to Respondents No. 2 and 3 to take decision on the claim of petitioner for grant of earned leave. 3. Learned State counsel submits that he is having no objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. Page No. 9 of the writ petition is an application for grant of leave in prescribed formate, however, perusal of which would show that at page 10, which is second page of the application, in place of signature of applicant it is left blank. Petitioner thereafter submitted Annexure P-1 representation before Respondent No. 2 on 19.04.2022 requesting to sanction leave. According to the petitioner, neither the application was considered nor representation was decided. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to dispose off this writ petition at this stage, directing Respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by petitioner dated 19.04.2022, in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a further period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court. 3 / 3 7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE