Disposed¶25

Deval Singh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 May 2026WPS/3879/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave encashment; work charged employee; contingency paid employees; retired Field Assistant; representation to be decided within three months; Faguvaram Patel W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 decided 30.09.2022; State of Chhattisgarh; Public Works Department Division Balod; petition disposed of with directions, not decided on merits; WPS No. 3879 of 2026; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; Anand Kumar Kujur for petitioner; Shahil Singh for State.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit a fresh representation before the appropriate authority, with a direction that the petitioner's claim be considered and decided in accordance with law, preferably within three months from receipt of the representation, keeping in mind the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra). ¶25

Deval Singh Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who stood retired from the post of Field Assistant as a Work Charged and Contingency Paid employee, is entitled to leave encashment which the respondents have not extended to him. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the appropriate authority; in the event such representation is submitted, 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 the representation. The Court did not adjudicate the entitlement to leave encashment on merits.

¶24

Key takeaways

The decision on the petitioner's representation is to be made keeping in mind the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra).ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPS No. 3879 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.), order dated 05/05/2026 - Deval Singh Baghel, a retired work-charged/contingency-paid employee (post of Field Assistant), claimed that the respondents had not extended the benefit of leave encashment to him. Without pressing the writ petition on merits, his counsel sought liberty to submit a representation in light of Faguvaram Patel & Ors. vs. State of C.G., W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 (decided 30.09.2022), wherein an identical issue was allowed in favour of the petitioners; the State counsel raised no objection to such a limited prayer. The Court disposed of the petition permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the appropriate authority and directed that, upon such representation, his claim be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from receipt thereof, keeping in mind the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra). Certified copy as per rules.

¶1

¶2

RAVISHANKARMANDAVI Digitallysigned byRAVISHANKARMANDAVIDate:2026.05.1117:38:26+0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:20885

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3879 of 2026

¶7

1 - Deval Singh Baghel S/o Ramcharan Baghel Aged About 62 Years The Retired Work Charged Employee, R/o Village Sikosa, Post Sikosa, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Accounts And Treasury, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from CIS)
For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Shahil Singh, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

05/05/2026

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who stood retired from the post of Field Assistant, 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 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 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Taking into consideration, the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of permitting

¶23

¶24

petitioner to submit fresh representation before appropriate authority. 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) .

¶25

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

¶26

Certified copy as per rules.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Ravi Mandavi

Deval Singh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deval Singh Baghel 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parivesh Parihar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Geeta Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajkumari Devi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Praveen Kumar Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Anil Kumar Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vandana Waghmare Vs Bharti Pradhan District Education Officer (D.E.O.)