1 2026:CGHC:17117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3274 of 2026 1 - Smt. Tameshwari Patel W/o Rupesh Kumar Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o 580 Marar Para Ward No 18 Post Baniyagaon Distt- Kondagaon C.G.(Wife Of Deceased Employee) 2 - Ramcharan Poyam S/o Sukalu Poyam Aged About 30 Years R/o House No 144, Ward No.07, School Para Sonabal Distt- Kondagaon C.G. (Son Of Deceased Employee) 3 - Sahdai Baid W/o Chamra Ram Baid Aged About 66 Years R/o 60 Awaspalat Para Ward No.05 Golawand Distt- Kondagaon Cg (Wife 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 (Ba/sa) Jagdalpur Distt- Bastar (C.G.) 5 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department (Ba/sa) Jagdalpur Distt- Bastar (C.G.) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.04.21 12:49:47 +0530 2 6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Ba/sa) Distt- Kondagaon (C.G.) 7 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bastar Division Jagdalpur Distt- Bastar C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 15/04/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are legal representative of deceased employee who stood retired as Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees, petitioners are entitled for leave encashment but till date respondents have not extended the benefit of leave encashment to petitioners. 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 have raised identical issue which was allowed in their favour. He submits that at this stage, petitioners may be permitted to submit representation in light of Faguvaram Patel (supra) and respondents be directed to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioners expeditiously within specified time. 3 2. Learned State counsel submits that as the petitioners are not pressing this petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to decide the representations to be submitted by petitioners, at this stage, he is having no objection. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record. 4. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioners, this petition is disposed of permitting petitioners to submit fresh representation before appropriate authority. In the event, petitioners submit representation, their 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, the petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. 6. C.C. as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi