Smt. Sonwati Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jan 2026WPS/529/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPS No. 529 of 2026; decided 19/01/2026 by Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; leave encashment; Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee; retirement benefits; Water Resource Department; direction to decide representation within three months; reliance on Faguvaram Patel v. State of C.G., W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 (decided 30.09.2022); petition disposed of without deciding merits; representation-direction jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Permission to submit a fresh representation seeking leave encashment, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the claim in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months of receipt of the representation, keeping in mind the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra). The petition was not pressed on merits. ¶¶22

Smt. Sonwati Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who retired as a Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee, is entitled to the benefit of leave encashment. +1 more

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the limited prayer, the petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

If the petitioner submits a representation, the 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 the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra).ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.), WPS No. 529 of 2026, decided 19/01/2026: Petition by persons including a retiree who had served as a Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee, claiming non-extension of leave encashment benefit by the Water Resource Department authorities. The petition was not pressed on merits; counsel sought only leave to submit a fresh representation in light of this Court's earlier decision in Faguvaram Patel & Ors. 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 decision, to which State counsel had no objection. Held: petition disposed of permitting submission of a fresh representation; on such representation the claim is to be considered and decided in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months of receipt, keeping in mind the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra). No determination on the merits of the leave encashment entitlement.

2026:CGHC:2961

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 529 of 2026

¶6

1 - Smt. Sonwati Chauhan W/o Late Kripal Chauhan Aged About 58 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar, Ward No. 7, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Ashok Kumar Pathak S/o Lalta Prasad Pathak Aged About 66 Years Retired Tubewell Driver, R/o Mission Chowk, Tiwari Building Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Chief Engineer Hasdev Ganga Kachhar, Water Resource Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Division No. - 01 Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶14

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

¶15

19/01/2026

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶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 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).

¶22

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

¶23

C.C. as per rules.

¶24

Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM DEY
DEY Date:
2026.01.20
10:58:24
+0530
Dey

¶25

Sd/ - (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Smt. Sonwati Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sonwati Chauhan 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

Guman Singh Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Keshav Prasad Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jainarayan Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tribhuwan Prakash Banjare Vs Vijay Dayaram K. Director

Bhupendra Vaishnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh