‘Not a matter of right’: Rajasthan High Court rejects plea of teacher who went on child care leave before getting nod

“Leave is not a matter of right and is at the discretion of the employer, and the maximum leave which can be granted is two years, subject to fulfilling certain conditions,” the April 29 order read.

‘Can’t remain absent without approval’

• The Rajasthan High Court observed that the petitioner remained absent after applying for leave, without awaiting its approval.
• It held that such conduct amounts to unauthorised absence under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which cannot be regularised by subsequently granting CCL.
• Referring to the petitioner’s grievance that another teacher was granted leave, the court held that such a contention does not justify unauthorised absence.
• The Rajasthan High Court pointed out that if the petitioner was aggrieved by unequal treatment, she could have availed the appropriate legal remedy, rather than remaining absent from duty.
• It reiterated that such conduct cannot be justified under the service rules.
• The court, however, directed the authorities to consider granting extraordinary leave without pay, noting that the petitioner was under a bona fide impression while remaining absent.
• Referring to the Rajasthan Service Rules, the Rajasthan High Court emphasised that CCL cannot be claimed as a matter of right and requires prior approval of the competent authority.
• It further clarified that any absence before the sanction of CCL is to be treated as unauthorised, and such a period cannot be converted into child care leave.

Leave applied, but not granted

The petition was filed challenging the rejection of child care leave and the initiation of proceedings under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, proposing to treat the petitioner’s absence as unauthorised.

The case of the petitioner is that she is working as a teacher and was an eligible person entitled to avail CCL of a maximum period of two years, and that the grant of such leave was at the discretion of the employer.

In terms of the same, she submitted an application for a grant of CCL. However, it was alleged that before the leave was sanctioned, the petitioner absented herself from duty with the hope of a grant of leave.

It was also the grievance of the petitioner that the headmaster, who was acting “vengefully”, granted similar leave to another teacher who applied subsequent to the petitioner, whereas the petitioner was not granted such leave.

Delhi High Court on CCL

Previously, in an unrelated case, the Delhi High Court granted relief to a central government officer against the penalty and disciplinary action initiated against her for seeking child care leave without sanction.

In an order issued on November 20, 2025, a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain observed that the petitioner, a woman serving as an assistant section officer in the Central Secretariat Service, had sought child care leave on multiple occasions between 2013 and 2015.