1 2026:CGHC:20846 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3875 of 2026 1 - Bhojram Yadaw S/o Awadh Ram Yadaw Aged About 63 Years A Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Village Pausari, Post Chapa, Tehsil Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Accounts And Treasury, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Executive Engineer Water Management Division No. 02 Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shahil Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.05.11 17:38:26 +0530 2 Order on Board 05/05/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who stood retired from the post of Labour, as Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees, is 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 therein 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, 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 3 petitioner to submit fresh representation before appropriate authority. 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. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Ravi Mandavi