1 / 4 CGHC010375802026 2026:CGHC:42317 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7176 of 2026 Mrs. Sudha Khaparde W/o Mr, Preetam Kumar Khaparde Aged About 43 Years Post- Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Government Higher Secondary School Bhiragaon, Block Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Joint Director Education Bastar Division, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3. District Education Officer, Uttar Bastar Kanker District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4. Principal Government Higher Secondary School Bhiragaon Block Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition calling in question the order dated 17.09.2026, whereby her application seeking grant of Child Care Leave (CCL) has been rejected. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.09.29 17:03:53 +0530 2 / 4 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a woman Government servant working as Lecturer (Sanskrit), has been denied 180 days’ Child Care Leave for the care and treatment of her minor son, aged about 15 years, despite her eligibility under Rule 38-C of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 and availability of the requisite leave balance. It is submitted that the application has been rejected solely on the ground of administrative and academic difficulties, such as non-availability of an alternative Sanskrit teacher, without considering the medical condition of the minor child. Learned counsel further submits that such grounds are insufficient for denial of Child Care Leave. He further placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in Smt. Manda Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No.5386 of 2026 decided on 21.7.2026). Accordingly, learned counsel prays for quashing of the impugned order and for sanction of the Child Care Leave, or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of the petitioner’s application in accordance with law. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that there is no alternate Sanskrit teacher available and, therefore, the competent authority was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a permanent employee of the respondent Department and is the mother of a minor son. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner being a government 3 / 4 employee is eligible for the benefit of Child Care Leave under Rule 38-C of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010. The only reason assigned in the impugned order for declining the petitioner's request is shortage of Sanskrit teacher. However, such administrative difficulty, by itself, cannot constitute a valid ground for defeating a statutory service benefit conferred under the Leave Rules. The object of Child Care Leave is to enable a Government servant, particularly a mother of young children, to provide proper care, protection and attention to her minor children during their formative years. Such beneficial provisions deserve a purposive interpretation so as to advance the object sought to be achieved. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has sought Child Care Leave for taking care of her minor son. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is ineligible for grant of Child Care Leave or that she has exhausted the maximum period admissible under Rule 38-C of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010. The sole reason for rejecting her request is the shortage of Sankrit teacher. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner satisfies the eligibility conditions prescribed under the Rules, shortage of staff or administrative exigencies cannot constitute a valid ground to deny a statutory benefit. It is for the employer to make suitable administrative arrangements to meet the exigencies of service and such administrative constraints cannot override a statutory entitlement. 7. Having regard to the object underlying the grant of Child Care Leave, the tender age of the petitioner's child and the admitted 4 / 4 position that the petitioner continues to be eligible for the said benefit, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 17.09.2026 rejecting the petitioner's request solely on the ground of shortage of staff is arbitrary and unsustainable in law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 17.09.2026 rejecting the petitioner's application for Child Care Leave is hereby quashed. Since the petitioner applied for 180 days CCL from 23.9.2026 to 21.3.2027, the respondent authorities are directed to pass an appropriate order grating CCL in favour of the petitioner. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti