Chhattisgarh High Court
Administrative and Public LawEmployment and Labour Law

Administrative exigencies cannot override an eligible employee’s statutory entitlement to Child Care Leave.

MRS. SUDHA KHAPARDE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: September 29, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Administrative exigencies cannot override an eligible employee’s statutory entitlement to Child Care Leave.. MRS. SUDHA KHAPARDE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner, a Government Lecturer and mother of a minor son, applied for 180 days’ Child Care Leave (CCL) from 23 September 2026 to 21 March 2027.

Source reference: paras. 1–3, 5–6; pp. 1–3

Her application was rejected on 17 September 2026, solely because no alternative Sanskrit teacher was available.

Source reference: paras. 1–3, 5–6; pp. 1–3

She challenged that rejection under Article 226, asserting eligibility under Rule 38-C of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 and that she had not exhausted her admissible leave.

Source reference: paras. 1–3, 5–6; pp. 1–3
02

Issues

Whether shortage of staff or other administrative difficulties can, by themselves, justify refusing CCL to an employee eligible under Rule 38-C

Source reference: paras. 5–7; pp. 2–4

Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s CCL application should be quashed and appropriate relief granted

Source reference: paras. 1, 7–8; pp. 1, 4
03

Law Applied

The Court applied Rule 38-C of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, under which the petitioner was eligible to seek CCL.

Source reference: paras. 5–6; pp. 2–3

It held that where an employee satisfies the prescribed eligibility conditions and has not exhausted the maximum admissible leave, shortage of staff or administrative exigencies, without more, cannot defeat the statutory service benefit; the employer must make suitable administrative arrangements

Source reference: paras. 5–6; pp. 2–3

The Court also invoked the purposive interpretation of beneficial leave provisions, referring to CCL’s purpose of enabling a Government servant to care for a minor child

Source reference: para. 5; p. 2
04

Reasoning

The petitioner’s eligibility for CCL and her status as the mother of a minor child were undisputed, and the respondents did not contend that she had exhausted the maximum leave available under Rule 38-C.

Source reference: paras. 5–7; pp. 2–4

The rejection rested only on the absence of another Sanskrit teacher. Applying the rule that administrative constraints cannot override an eligible employee’s statutory benefit, the Court found that this staffing concern did not justify denying the application and rendered the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable

Source reference: paras. 5–7; pp. 2–4
05

Holding

The Court held that shortage of staff alone was not a valid ground to deny the petitioner’s CCL application.

It allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 17 September 2026, and directed the respondent authorities to pass an appropriate order granting CCL for the period applied for—23 September 2026 to 21 March 2027

Source reference: para. 8; p. 4
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

MRS. SUDHA KHAPARDEvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · September 29, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment