Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010053932026 2026:GAU-AS:4120 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1585/2026 BHUCHITRA BANIA C/O KAUSTAV KASHYAP, R/O BHUKTABARI, P.O- SIPAJHAR, DIST- DARRANG, PIN- 784145, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPTT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT ASSAM CIVIL SECRETARIAT BOLCK C DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM, PIN 781006. 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT ASSAM CIVIL SECRETARIATE BLOCK C DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781006 3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR-06 ASSAM 4:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SONITPUR DISTRICT CIRCLE TEZPUR ASSAM 6:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PIN- 784177 Page No.# 2/4 (EDUCATION) BISWANATH 7:THE PRINCIPAL DAKHIN KALABARI H.S SCHOOL KAMDEWAL BISWANAT Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH, MR B P BORAH,MR P J DUTTA,MR. U S BORA,MISS. J GOGOI,MR. A KHANDAKAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 23.03.2026 Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. 2. Aggrieved by rejection of the application for Child Care Leave (‘CCL’ in short) in terms of the Assam State Government Employees Child Care Leave Rules, 2025, (in short, “Rules of 2025”) the petitioner has put to challenge the endorsement by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Education on the body of the application, by which, the petitioner has been allowed only casual leave while rejecting CCL. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the application for CCL as per the Rules of 2025. 3. Having considered the nature of the grievance and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. 4. The petitioner being a female government employee working as Post-Graduate teacher in History subject at Dakshin Kalabari Higher Secondary School under Biswanath district, Assam has applied for CCL for a period of 30 (thirty) days w.e.f. 06.02.2026 to 07.03.2026 due to sickness of her minor child, which was granted by an order dated 09.02.2026. After completion of the said 30 days CCL, when the sickness of her child continued, the petitioner applied extension of CCL in terms of Page No.# 3/4 Assam State Government Employees Child Care Leave Rule, 2025. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authority has mechanically rejected the prayer for extension of CCL and instead granted a mere casual leave, that too, by an endorsement on the body of the application itself, which is contrary to the right conferred under the Rules of 2025. 6. Having considered the nature of the grievance, Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions. 7. Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel by placing the communication dated 20.03.2026 from the Inspector of Schools, Sonitpur District Circle, Tezpur, submits that the petitioner has already availed 30 days CCL. As per the report of the Principal of Dakshin Kalabari Higher Secondary School, ever since the petitioner has joined in her service on 27.12.2025, she has availed 30 days CCL, remained absent in December, 2025, January, 2026 as well as in the current month of March, 2026 till date. It is also reported that she has refused to extend any cooperation in the examination duties for HS and HSLC Final Examination 2026. 8. Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel submits that although the State has framed Rules for the benefit of the employees as regards the CCL by notification dated 07.04.2025, such CCL cannot be demanded as a matter of right and under no circumstances can any employee proceed on CCL without sanctioned of leave by the competent authority. He further submits that balance has to be maintained between the right of an employee and the administrative exigency. In the instant case, the petitioner has already availed 30 days CCL and remained unauthorizedly absent from duties, hampering the interest of the students as there is a shortage of teacher for the final examination of the students of the school. 9. He submits that considering the difficulties faced by the petitioner, CCL of 30 days was granted, thereafter, another casual leave has also been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim indefeasible right to CCL, as such right would be subject to the administrative exigency. 10. Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has availed 30 days CCL. Under the Rules of 2025, the petitioner has the right to avail 730 days CCL up to maximum of three spells in a calendar year. Since the petitioner has only availed 30 days CCL, which could be considered as the first spell, the petitioner is entitled to another two spells as the sickness/illness of the child of the petitioner continue to persist. Therefore, the rejection of the application of CCL without proper consideration, that too by way of an endorsement on the body of the application, is totally unfair. Page No.# 4/4 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The Rules of 2025 inter alia provides that a female government employee or a single male government employee, who has minor children up to age 18 years and is custody of the child, may be granted CCL by the competent authority on an application for a maximum period of two years i.e. 730 days during the entire service for taking care of up to two minor children whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like, examination, sickness etc. It also provides inter alia that CCL shall not be demanded as a matter of right and under no circumstance can any employee proceed on CCL without prior sanction of leave by competent authority. 13. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner has availed 30 days CCL due to sickness of her minor child. Thereafter, she has applied for extension of CCL for another three months on medical grounds, particularly continuous sickness of her child. However, the respondent authorities allowed only casual leave, while rejecting the CCL which appears to have been considered mechanically. The petitioner would be entitled for CCL of another two spells in a calendar year. Although CCL cannot be demanded as a matter of right, given the present facts and circumstances, the authorities are bound to consider the case of the petitioner objectively. 14. Having considered that the petitioner would be entitled to CCL in view of the sickness of her minor child, under the Rules of 2025 and also considering that the prayer for CCL having been rejected without proper consideration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for extension of CCL objectively in terms of the Rules of 2025. 15. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 09.03.2026 within a period of 15 days from today by a reasoned order. Since the application for extension of CCL appears to have been not properly considered, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till disposal of the application of the petitioner. 16. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant