Disposed¶23

Ranjan Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2026WPS/33/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave encashment; Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee; retirement benefits; fresh representation to be decided within three months; Faguvaram Patel v. State of C.G., W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 (30.09.2022) relied on; State of Chhattisgarh, Water Resource Department; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; single judge (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.); disposed of with direction, no decision on merits; WPS No. 33 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation; respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' 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

Ranjan Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who stood retired as Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees, are entitled to leave encashment, and whether the respondents should be directed to decide the petitioners' representation in light of Faguvaram Patel (supra) within a specified time.

¶16

Court's answer

Petition disposed of in light of Faguvaram Patel (supra); petitioners permitted to make a fresh representation, and their claim shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Direction that the petitioners' claim be decided preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation, keeping in mind the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra).

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (S) No. 33 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Parth Prateem Sahu, J., order dated 07/01/2026. Two retired Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees of the Water Resource Department sought leave encashment. The petition was not pressed on merits; counsel sought only liberty to submit a representation in light of Faguvaram Patel v. State of C.G., W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 (decided 30.09.2022), wherein an identical issue was allowed, and a direction for its expeditious disposal, to which the State had no objection. The Court disposed of the petition in light of Faguvaram Patel (supra), permitted the petitioners to make a fresh representation, and directed that their claim be considered and decided in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months of receipt of the representation, keeping in mind the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra). No adjudication on merits.

1 / 2

2026:CGHC:860

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 33 of 2026

¶6

1 - Ranjan Nishad S/o Late Bishram Nishad Aged About 70 Years R/o Near Panchayat Office, Kanapod, Lakhanpuri, District North Baster Kanker C.G.

¶7

2 - Kartik Ram Kewat S/o Late Bachchuram Kewat Aged About 70 Years R/o Shiv Nagar, Kanker, District North Baster Kanker C.G.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶11

2 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, District North Baster Kanker C.G.

¶12

... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer

¶13

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

¶14

07/01/2026

¶15

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.01.08 10:47:47 +0530

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who stood retired as Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee 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

¶17

2 / 2

¶18

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.

¶19

Learned State counsel submits that as petitioners are not pressing this petition on merits and are only seeking a direction to decide the representation to be submitted by petitioners, at this stage, he is having no objection.

¶20

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

¶21

Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is disposed off in light of Faguvaram Patel (Supra) and the petitioners are permitted to make fresh representation. 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

¶22

Faguvaram Patel (supra).

¶23

Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with aforesaid observation and direction.

¶24

C.C. as per rules.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶27

Judge

¶28

Praveen

Ranjan Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Nishad 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

Smt. Jashwanti Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

B.R. Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kekti Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Lokesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxminarayan Soni Vs Shri v. Sreenivasa Rao