SMT. MANDA TIWARI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010412482026 2026:CGHC:44806
NAFR
SOURABH
BHILWAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH BHILWAR
Date: 2026.10.16
16:49:35 +0530
WPS No. 7623 of 2026
Smt. Manda Tiwari D/o Late Ashok Tiwari Aged About 38 Years Post Jail
Warder, Posted At Central Jail Bilaspur, R/o Jail Premises Bilaspur,
Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt- Raipur
(C.G.)
2 - Director General Of Police, (Jail), Police Headquarter New Raipur,
Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Jail Superintendent, Central Jail Bilaspur, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - Jailoy, Central Jail, Bilaspur, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate
For Respondents/ State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
16/10/2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondents to grant and sanction Child Care Leave for a period

2
of 120 days, instead of 20 days, in accordance with Rule 38-C of
the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (for short,
“the Rules of 2010”), along with all consequential service benefits.
2. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed as a Woman Warder at Central Jail,
Bilaspur, vide appointment order dated 18.09.2006. He submits
that the petitioner was blessed with twin children on 10.09.2025
and was initially granted Child Care Leave for the period from
13.04.2026 to 11.07.2026. Thereafter, this Court, vide order dated
21.07.2026 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5386 of 2026, granted her
further 60 days of Child Care Leave. Learned counsel further
submits that, considering the tender age of the children and their
continued health issues, the petitioner sought a further 120 days
of Child Care Leave; however, the competent authority, vide the
impugned order dated 01.10.2026 (Annexure P/1), sanctioned
only 20 days of leave. By referring to Rule 38-C of the Rules of
2010, learned counsel submits that a woman Government servant
is entitled to Child Care Leave for a maximum period of 730 days
during her entire service, subject to the conditions prescribed
therein.
(b) Learned counsel, by further referring to Rule 38-C(4)(a) of the
Rules of 2010, submits that such leave shall not be granted for
more than three spells in a calendar year. He would further submit
that the petitioner’s twin children, who are presently aged about
one year, have been continuously suffering from health issues and

3
require regular hospital visits for medical check-ups. Learned
counsel submits that, even after availing the aforesaid periods of
leave, the petitioner is entitled to further Child Care Leave under
the Rules of 2010, and there is no prescribed maximum limit on
the number of days of such leave that may be granted in a
calendar year, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. She,
therefore, submits that, considering the tender age and medical
condition of the petitioner’s twin children, the impugned order
restricting the leave to 20 days warrants interference, and prays
that the petitioner be granted Child Care Leave for a longer period
in accordance with Rule 38-C of the Rules of 2010.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the
petitioner's application seeking Child Care Leave has already
been considered by the competent authority, which, vide order
dated 01.10.2026, has sanctioned 20 days of Child Care Leave.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. From perusal of Rule 38-C of the Rules of 2010, it is evident that a
woman Government servant may be granted Child Care Leave for
a maximum period of 730 days during her entire service for taking
care of her two eldest surviving children, subject to the conditions
prescribed therein. Rule 38-C(4)(a) further provides that such
leave shall not be granted for more than three spells in a calendar
year. Thus, the entitlement to Child Care Leave is required to be

4
considered in accordance with the aforesaid Rules, keeping in
view the prescribed conditions and the circumstances of the
individual case.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has twin children aged about
one year who, as per the medical documents placed on record,
have been suffering from health issues and require regular
medical check-ups. Thus, considering the tender age of the
children, their medical condition and the petitioner's need to
provide them with necessary care and attention, this Court is of
the view that the petitioner deserves some further extension of
Child Care Leave.
7. In view of the above, in addition to the 20 days of Child Care
Leave already sanctioned by the competent authority, the
petitioner is granted a further period of 80 days of Child Care
Leave , subject to the applicable Rules. The respondents are
directed to take consequential steps in this regard, treating the
petitioner to be on Child Care Leave for the said period.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated
above.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
$. Bhilwar