The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that unauthorized absence from duty, even when motivated by an expectation of Child Care Leave (CCL) approval, renders an employee ineligible for such leave under Rule 103(c) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. However, recognizing the petitioner’s bona fide intent, the Court directed the authorities to reconsider her application for extraordinary leave without pay, setting a nuanced precedent for administrative discretion in service matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Pooja Soni, a government school teacher, applied for Child Care Leave (CCL) under Rule 103(c) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, to care for her minor child. Before her application was formally sanctioned, she ceased attending duty, anticipating approval. Subsequently, the respondents issued notices dated 13.04.2026, 26.04.2026, and 29.04.2026 (Annex.1A) proposing action under Rule 86 of the Rules for unauthorized absence. The petitioner challenged these notices and the rejection of her CCL application through this writ petition.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was employed as a teacher in a government school in Kakalwara, Arahi, Ajmer
- She submitted an application for CCL under Rule 103(c) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951
- She remained absent from duty from the date of application submission until the issuance of notices
- Another teacher, who applied for CCL after the petitioner, was granted leave
- The Headmaster allegedly acted with bias in granting leave to the other teacher while denying it to the petitioner
- The petitioner’s application for CCL remained pending at the time of her absence and the issuance of notices
- No formal order granting or rejecting CCL had been passed prior to the initiation of proceedings under Rule 86
Procedural History
- Date of CCL application: Not specified, but prior to 13.04.2026
- 13.04.2026: First notice issued under Rule 86 for unauthorized absence
- 26.04.2026: Second notice issued under Rule 86
- 29.04.2026: Third notice issued under Rule 86
- 19.04.2026: Writ Petition No. 19767/2025 filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench
- 29.04.2026: Writ petition heard and disposed of at the admission stage by Justice Munnuri Laxman
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner:
- Argued that CCL is a statutory entitlement under Rule 103(c), and her absence was motivated by a genuine belief that leave would be granted
- Alleged discriminatory treatment, citing that another teacher received CCL despite applying later
- Contended that the delay in deciding her application was attributable to the authorities, not her
- Sought quashing of the Rule 86 notices and direction to grant CCL
For the Respondents:
- Maintained that Rule 103(c) explicitly prohibits proceeding on CCL without prior approval
- Stated that the petitioner’s absence before sanction rendered it unauthorized under Rule 103(c)(v)
- Argued that Rule 86 was correctly invoked for unauthorized absence
- Denied any malafide intent, attributing delay in decision to administrative backlog
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the notices dated 13.04.2026, 26.04.2026, and 29.04.2026 issued under Rule 86
- Direction to grant CCL for the period of absence
- Direction to treat her absence as authorized
- Direction to prevent any disciplinary action based on the notices
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Rule 103(c) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 permits a government servant to claim Child Care Leave after having already remained absent from duty without prior approval, and whether such absence can be excused on grounds of bona fide intent or alleged discriminatory treatment by the employer.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the humanitarian purpose of CCL under Rule 103(c), arguing that the leave is meant to support working mothers in childcare responsibilities. She contended that her absence was not malicious but stemmed from a reasonable expectation of approval, especially given that another teacher received CCL despite a later application. She cited principles of natural justice and equitable treatment, asserting that the delay in deciding her application was attributable to the authorities, not her. She further argued that Rule 103(c) does not explicitly bar CCL if the application precedes absence, and that the prohibition in clause (v) applies only to those who abscond without any application.
For the Respondent
The respondents emphasized the mandatory language of Rule 103(c)(v), which unequivocally states that CCL shall not be granted to any government servant who remains on unauthorized absence and applies thereafter. They argued that the rule is clear: prior approval is non-negotiable. The absence, regardless of motive, constituted a breach of service discipline. They further contended that the petitioner’s grievance regarding differential treatment by the Headmaster was a separate administrative issue, not a justification for violating service rules. The invocation of Rule 86 was procedurally correct and necessary to maintain discipline.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a textual and contextual analysis of Rule 103(c), particularly clause (v), which states: "Child Care Leave shall not be granted under any circumstances to a female Government servant [...] who remains on an unauthorized absence from duty and applies for it thereafter." The Court held that the language is unambiguous and leaves no room for interpretation. The petitioner’s absence preceded any formal sanction of leave, thereby triggering the prohibition.
"The Rule further states that a person who has unauthorizedly remained absent, such period of absence shall not be supplemented with CCL. The Rule further clarifies that absence from duty prior to the grant of CCL is unauthorized absence."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that her conduct was motivated by bona fide intent. It observed that while motive may explain behavior, it cannot override a clear statutory prohibition. The Court also dismissed the claim of discriminatory treatment by another teacher, noting that such disparity, if any, must be challenged through appropriate grievance mechanisms and cannot justify violation of service discipline.
However, the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s genuine circumstances and the administrative lapse in not deciding her application in a timely manner. It emphasized that the petitioner had not absconded or acted in bad faith, but had remained absent under a mistaken belief that her application would be approved.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The rejection of Child Care Leave is upheld; no interference is warranted.
- The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s application for extraordinary leave without pay positively, given her bona fide intent and the delay in processing her CCL application.
- All proceedings under the notices dated 13.04.2026, 26.04.2026, and 29.04.2026 issued under Rule 86 are stayed until the application for extraordinary leave is decided.
- All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Unauthorized Absence Bars CCL Regardless of Motive
- Practitioners must advise government servants that any absence prior to CCL approval automatically disqualifies them under Rule 103(c)(v), irrespective of intent or perceived fairness
- Applications for CCL must be submitted well in advance, and employees must remain on duty until formally sanctioned
- No judicial relief will be granted to excuse unauthorized absence, even if the employee believed leave would be granted
Bona Fide Conduct May Warrant Administrative Compassion
-
While CCL cannot be granted retroactively, authorities must consider alternative remedies such as extraordinary leave without pay when absence stems from genuine misunderstanding
-
Administrative delays in processing leave applications may trigger a duty to exercise discretion favorably under equitable principles
-
This judgment creates a pathway for petitioners to seek non-punitive relief even when strict rules are violated, provided conduct is not mala fide
-
Always document leave applications and follow up in writing to establish proof of timely submission
-
If leave is delayed, file a formal representation seeking a timeline for decision, not an unauthorized absence
-
Challenge discriminatory practices through departmental appeals, not by violating attendance rules
