1 2026:CGHC:19790 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3680 of 2026 1 - Arjun Prasad Sahu S/o Dav Ram Sahu, Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Gudi, P.S. Seepat, Districr Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, General Administration Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, North Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hasdev Bango Pariyojna, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Executive Engineer, Mini Mata Bango Nahar, Division No. 6, Nandelibhata- Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) --- Respondents 2 For Petitioner : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Love Sharma, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who stood retired as Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee 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 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 are only seeking a direction to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioner, at this stage, 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 3 months from the date of receipt of representation keeping in mind decision in case of Faguvaram Patel (supra). 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with aforesaid observation and direction. C.C. as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY