1 2026:CGHC:17128 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2205 of 2021 Dr. Munnalal Nandeshwar S/o Late Shri Goverdhan Nandeshwar Aged About 52 Years Occupation Service, Working As Sports officer, Government Nehru Post Graduate College, Dongargarh, Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 491445. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary , Government of Chhatisgarh Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur , Atal Nagar , Raipur , Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan , Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Director Directorate of Higher Education Block C-3, 2nd And 3rd Floor , Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur , Atal Nagar , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Principal Government Nehru Post Graduate College, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Principal Government Danteshwari Girls College , Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Advocate along with Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. Call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the respondents. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 12/11/2020 by issuing theWrit(s) in the nature of certiorari, direct the respondents to sanction leave to the petitioner and to pay the salary payable to him with interest thereon as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3 Pass any other relief/order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner against the respondents including the costs of the petition and suitable compensation to the petitioner under the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr. Marhas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was posted as a Sports Officer, was transferred on administrative grounds vide order dated 21.08.2019, from Government Nehru P.G. College Dongargarh, Rajnandgaon to Government Danteshwari Girls College, Jagdalpur and he was directed to join at the transferred place within 15 days. He would further submit that the petitioner was relieved on 14.11.2019 and joined at the transferred place on 16.03.2020, as he fell ill during the said period. He would also submit that the petitioner moved an application for grant of medical leave from 15.11.2019 to 15.03.2020 along with sufficient medical documents, but the said application was rejected vide order dated 12.11.2020. 3. Mr. Marhas would refer to the provisions of Rule 17 of the Leave Rules, 2010 which says that in exceptional circumstances, a Government servant may submit the leave application or medical certificate after the commencement of leave, subject to the satisfaction and discretion of the competent authority and such application for grant of leave can be entertained and considered. He would also contend that the 3 respondent authorities ought to have adjusted leave of three months against available medical or earned leave; thus, he would pray to set aside the order impugned. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that an application for grant of medical leave was moved after availing it. The application for medical leave was applied post facto and was rejected by the respondent No.1. He would argue that delay of seven days, as per Rule 17 of the Rules of 2010, can be considered and condoned by the authority concerned, but in the present case the application was moved after availing medical leave of 3 months; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the parties and perused the documents. 6. From a bare reading of Rule 17(6) of the Leave Rules, 2010, it is apparent that the competent authority may waive the requirement of a medical certificate for leave up to 7 days at its discretion. However, such leave will not be treated as medical leave and it will be deducted from other types of leave instead. 7. In the present case, the petitioner moved an application for availing medical leave for a period of three months after availing it. The respondent No.1 has rejected the application without taking into consideration sub-rule (6) of Rule 17 of the Leave Rules, 2010. The respondent authorities have not considered the leave applied for by the petitioner against other available leave, such as earned leave, etc, therefore, the order dated 12.11.2020 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. 8. The petitioner is granted liberty to make a fresh representation before respondent No. 1, and in turn, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of Rule 17 & Rule 13(2) of the Leave Rules, 2010. 4 9. The authority concerned would be at liberty to adjust the medical leave of the petitioner against other available leave in the account of the petitioner. 10.With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is hereby disposed off. No order as to cost. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim