Abdul Haleem v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2026WPS/3118/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPS No. 3118 of 2026; disposed 09.04.2026; Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge; NAFR. Keywords: leave encashment; Work Charged employees; Contingency Paid Employees; retired employee pensionary benefits; Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur/Bastar; direction to decide representation within three months; Faguvaram Patel & Ors. v. State of C.G., W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 (decided 30.09.2022); representation-based disposal without adjudication on merits; State counsel Purvi Tiwari; petitioner's counsel Rajendra Patel.

What did the court decide?

Permission to submit fresh representations; respondents to consider and decide the claim in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from receipt of the representation, keeping in mind the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra). ¶¶24

Abdul Haleem Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who stood retired as a Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee, is entitled to the benefit of leave encashment, which the respondents have allegedly not extended to him. +1 more

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by counsel (the petition not being pressed on merits), the petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit fresh representations.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

In the event the petitioner submits representation, his claim shall be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the representation, keeping in mind the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra).ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPS No. 3118 of 2026, Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; order dated 09.04.2026; NAFR) filed by a retired Contingency Lab Attendant of the Public Health Engineering Department, Jagdalpur, claiming leave encashment benefit alleged to have been withheld by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on Faguvaram Patel & Ors. v. State of C.G., W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 (decided 30.09.2022), wherein an identical issue was, according to counsel, allowed, sought leave to submit a representation with a direction for its expeditious disposal; the State had no objection as the petition was not pressed on merits. Disposing of the petition, the Court permitted the petitioner to submit fresh representations and directed that, upon such representation being submitted, the claim be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from receipt, keeping in mind the Faguvaram Patel decision. The Court did not itself adjudicate the entitlement to leave encashment.

1 / 2

2026:CGHC:16294

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3118 of 2026

¶6

Abdul Haleem S/o Shri Abdul Hafeej Aged About 63 Years Occupation- Retd. Contingency Lab Attendant Public Health Engineering Department, Jagdalpur, Distt.- Baster (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Public Health Engineering Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur, Distt.- Baster (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Division Jagdalpur, Distt.Baster (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Purvi Tiwari, P.L.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶15

ORDER ON BOARD

¶16

09.04.2026

¶17

1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner who stood retired 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

¶18

Court in case of Faguvaram Patel & Ors. vs. State of C.G., in W.P.(S) No.

¶19

2 / 2

¶20

3870 of 2021 decided on 30.09.2022 , wherein petitioner 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶23

4. Taking into consideration, the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to submit fresh representations. In the event, petitioner submits 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) .

¶24

5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶27

Saurabh

Abdul Haleem v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Haleem v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokesh Sahu Vs Shri Ankit Anand

Naresh Kumar Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashish Tiwari Vs Smt. K.K. Pushparjini

Rajesh Kumar Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Archana Wanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K. Laxman Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh