1 2026:CGHC:6548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2278 of 2020 1 - Smt. Hemlata Kerketta W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Kerketta Aged About 30 Years Working As Lecturer (Panchayat) And Posted At Government Higher Secondary School Barpali, Block Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Panchyat Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal , J Order On Board 05/02/2026 1. The petitioner herein is a Lecturer (Panchayat). Pursuant to the circular dated 11.8.2017 (Annexure-P/1) the petitioner was granted study leave without pay for the period 2017-18 and 2018-19, which the petitioner KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.02.06 12:30:40 +0530 2 has availed. Having availed the leave the petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the circular dated 11.8.2017 in which the petitioner was granted study leave without pay and further claiming that the said circular is unconstitutional and bad in law. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is confining his challenge only to clause-4 of the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) wherein it is mentioned that study leave would be sanctioned without pay. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The petitioner having availed the study leave on the basis of circular dated 11.8.2017 cannot be allowed to challenge the said circular and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition carefully. 5. Careful perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner was granted study leave on the basis of circular dated 11.8.2017. Vide order dated 11.9.2017 (Annexure-P/5) the petitioner has availed the study leave without questioning the same. In the circumstances, the said circular stipulating grant of study leave without pay cannot be held to be unconstitutional and the petitioner is not entitled for salary of two years of study leave. Moreover, the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. Since the petitioner has availed the study leave in accordance with the circular dated 11.8.2017, now she cannot be permitted to turn around and question the said circular on the basis of which she was granted leave and availed the same also. Furthermore, the petitioner is 3 not entitled for the salary for two years, as during the said period, she has not worked. Moreover, public exchequer cannot be burdened for the period during which no service was rendered by the petitioner. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve