1 2026:CGHC:8954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1633 of 2026 1 - Dipak Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Ramnath Kashyap Aged About 25 Years R/o Thanapara Katekalyan South Bastar Dantewada C.G. (Son Of Deceased Employee) --- Petitioner(s) 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 P.W.D. (Bh/sa) Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G. 6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Bh/sa) Division South Bastar Distt. South Bastar Dantewada C.G. 7 - Divi. Joint Director Treasury Acc. And Pension Bastar Division Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar C.G. --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Virendra Verma, P.L. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 19/02/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of petitioner 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 & BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.20 18:26:10 +0530 2 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 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 is 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 permitting petitioner to submit fresh representation. In the event, petitioner submits representation, his 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