Disposed¶23

Smt. Ankul Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jan 2026WPS/719/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave encashment; Work Charged and Contingency Paid employees; retirement benefit not paid; fresh representation to authorities; direction to decide representation within three months; reliance on Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of C.G., W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 (decided 30.09.2022); Public Works Department, Government of Chhattisgarh; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; WPS No. 719 of 2026; Justice Parth Prateem Sahu; petition disposed of with directions; no order on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit a fresh representation; upon such submission, her leave encashment 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); petition disposed of accordingly.

Smt. Ankul Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of leave encashment in respect of her husband, who stood retired as a Work Charged and Contingency Paid employee, the said benefit having not been extended by the respondents till date. +1 more

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation.

¶22

Key takeaways

If the petitioner submits a representation, her 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, keeping in mind the decision in Faguvaram Patel (supra).ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Single Bench, Parth Prateem Sahu, J.), WPS No. 719 of 2026, order dated 22/01/2026 - Leave encashment - Work Charged and Contingency Paid employee - Petitioner, widow of late Baratu Ram who stood retired as a Work Charged and Contingency Paid employee, sought the benefit of leave encashment not extended by the respondents. Relying on Faguvaram Patel & Ors. Vs. State of C.G., W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2021 (decided 30.09.2022), where an identical issue was allowed, the petitioner sought only liberty to submit a representation; the petition was not pressed on merits and the State raised no objection. Held: petition disposed of, permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation; the 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).

2026:CGHC:3782

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 719 of 2026

¶6

1 - Smt. Ankul Bai W/o. Late Baratu Ram, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Manhora, Sikosa, Block- Gundardehi, District Balod C.G.

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

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

¶10

2 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (B/r), Sukma, District Sukma C.G.

¶11

--- Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, G.A.

¶13

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

22/01/2026

¶16

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of petitioner stood retired as Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees, are 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

¶18

¶19

(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/s, 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 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) .

¶23

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

¶24

C.C. as per rules.

¶25

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶26

Balram

Smt. Ankul Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ankul Bai 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

Ramanand Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aniket Netam @ Ankit Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Roshan Prasad Byohare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Babulal Dhritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Kumar Pandey Vs S. Bhartidasan