Disposed¶23

Rajesh Puri Goswami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Apr 2026WPS/3193/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave encashment; work charged employee; contingency paid employee; retirement benefits; representation to be decided within three months; reliance on Faguvaram Patel (W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021, decided 30.09.2022); Chhattisgarh Public Works Department pension/dues; petition disposed of (not pressed on merits); petitioner Rajesh Puri Goswami; respondents State of C.G. PWD officials; counsel Ankita Shukla (petitioner), Apurva Nigam (State); single judge Parth Prateem Sahu; order dated 13/04/2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit a fresh representation; respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's leave encashment claim in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months of receipt of the representation, keeping in mind the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra). ¶23

Rajesh Puri Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:16824

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3193 of 2026

¶6

1 - Rajesh Puri Goswami S/o Lt. Nakul Puri Goswami Aged About 43 Years (Employee In Respondent Department), R/o H. No. 93, Ward No. 5, Goutiya Para, Nirjam, Mungeli, Distt - Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Work Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Chief Engineer Public Work Department, Bilaspur Zone, Distt - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Division Mungeli, Distt Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Divisional Joint Director Fund Account And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Distt - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer

¶15

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

13/04/2026

¶18

Digitally SHUBHAM signed by DEY SHUBHAM DEY

¶19

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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).

¶24

¶25