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. 1–3Her application was rejected on 17 September 2026, solely because no alternative Sanskrit teacher was available.
Source reference: paras. 1–3, 5–6; pp. 1–3She 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. 1–3Issues
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. 2–4Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s CCL application should be quashed and appropriate relief granted
Source reference: paras. 1, 7–8; pp. 1, 4Law 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. 2–3It 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. 2–3The 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. 2Reasoning
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. 2–4The 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. 2–4Holding
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. 4Original Court PDF
MRS. SUDHA KHAPARDEvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
