1 2026:CGHC:3242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 590 of 2026 1 - Smt. Rajkumari Thakur W/o Late Mohan Singh Thakur Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 14 Village Haurnar Post Gumda, Tahsil Geedam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Engineer In Chief Water Resource Department Naya Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Engineer Water Resource Department, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bastar Division, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Superintendent Engineer Indrawati Pariyojna Zone Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Department Division South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 7 - S.D.O. Water Resource Department Sub Division South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 20/01/2026 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 BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 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 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