Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition challenging the order sanctioning only 15 days of Child Care Leave (CCL) instead of applied 53 days Child Care Leave, a single-judge bench of Arun Monga, J., refused to interfere with respondent 4’s order and held that though Child Care Leave can be sanctioned up to 120 days, but it is not an unfettered right and is subject to administrative discretion.
In the instant matter, the petitioner, an Assistant Professor (Political Science) at Maharani Sudarshan College for Women, Bikaner, applied for 53 days of Child Care Leave from 05-02-2025 to 29-03-2025. The purpose of leave was to care for her 2-year-old minor son and assist her elder son (14 years) with his Class X Board Examination. However, respondent 4 sanctioned only 15 days of Child Care Leave vide order dated 24-01-2025. Aggrieved by the partial sanction, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order.
The Court noted that Rule 103C(2)(xi) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 grants female government servants up to 730 days of Child Care Leave during their service for taking care of their children. Child Care Leave is to be treated like Privilege Leave and sanctioned accordingly. It was noted that Memorandum dated 10-09-2018 clarifies that a maximum of 120 days can be sanctioned at a time, subject to admissibility. It was noted that Rule 91(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules states that 120 days is the upper limit for privilege leave at a time and Rule 59 states that leave is not an absolute right and can be refused or revoked based on public service requirements.
The Court opined that Child Care Leave can be sanctioned up to 120 days, but is not an absolute right and is subject to the discretion of the competent authority. The Court stated that Rule 59 Rajasthan Service Rules allows the authority to refuse or limit leave based on administrative needs.
“Child care leave is since akin to privileged leave, similar parameters will thus apply. Be it privileged or child care leave, as the case may be, it cannot be claimed as a matter of unfettered right. Discretion is reserved with the authority empowered to grant leave to refuse or revoke leave at any time according to the exigencies of the public service.”
The Court noted that the competent authority considered the extenuating circumstances and granted leave for the elder son’s examination period. The Court found no mala fide intent or procedural irregularity in the competent authority’s decision. The Court held that the courts will not substitute its discretion over the administrative authority unless there was malicious exercise of power, which is not evident in the present matter.
The Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of all pending applications on not finding any illegality or arbitrariness in the competent authority’s decision.
[Suman Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3073/2025, Decided on 05-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Suresh Kumar Bishnoi, Counsel for the Petitioner
