Smt. Manorama Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 878 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Manorama Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 July, 2025

                                                                              2025:CGHC:37527
                                                                                                   NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                         WPS No. 8620 of 2025

Smt. Manorama Sharma W/o Late Bhanupratap Aged About 69 Years R/o Ward No.
19, Sheetla, Thakur Para, Kawardha, Dist. Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)

                                                    versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Public Works,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
(C.G.)

2 - Engineer-In-Chief Department Of Public Works, Nirman Bhawan, North Block,
Naya Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department (E/m, Sub Division) Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)

4 - Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Division Durg, Tahsil And
District Durg (C.G.)

5 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division Kawardha, Tahsil And
District Kabirdham (C.G.)

6 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Durg, District Durg
(C.G.)                                                             ...Respondent(s)
                               (Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, PL

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 31.07.2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is retired

employee of the Public Works Department, and was working as Work Charged

Contingency paid employee. It is further submitted that in light of judgment passed

by this Court in WPS-3870 of 2021 (Faguvaram Patel, and others Vs State of Wps 8620 of 2025

Chhattisgarh and others), and other connected matters, decided on 30.09.2022,

present petitioner is also entitled for leave encashment.

2. Learned State counsel would submit that sufficient documents have not been

filed by the petitioner, and it is also not reflected as to whether the petitioner has

completed the minimum service to avail the benefit of leave encashment.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

4. Be that as it may, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this

petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation

before the concerned respondent/ competent authority within a period of 30 days

from the date of receipt of copy of this order with all necessary documents to

substantiate his/her claim. In that event, on due verification, if the petitioner is found

to be similarly situated person as in the case of Faguvaram Patel (supra), his/her

claim shall be decided by the respondents in light of judgment passed in that case

expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the

said representation.

5. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation and

direction.

Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma