Child Care Leave Akin To 'Privilege Leave', Not Unfettered Right: Rajasthan HC Says State Not Mandated To Grant Leave For Maximum Period Of 120 Days

The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed by a woman who was working as an Assistant Professor at Maharani Sudarshan College of Women, Bikaner, and had applied for a 53 days Child Care Leave to take care of her 2-year old, as well as help her 14-year old in his Class 10^th Board Examination.

As opposed to her application for a 53-days leave, she was granted only 15 days of Child Care Leave by the State, against which the petition was moved before the Court.

It was the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 103C(2)(xi) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (the “Rules”) Child Care Leave could be sanctioned for a maximum period of 120 days.

The Court referred to Rule 91 as well as Rule 59 of the Rules. Rule 91 laid down the procedure for admissibility of privilege leave, and Rule 59 provided that leave could not be claimed as a right and the discretion lied with the authority to refuse or revoke it at any time based on the exigencies of the public service.

After perusing the Rules, the Court held that,

“I am of the opinion that child care leave is since akin to privileged leave, similar parameters will thus apply. Be it privileged or child care leave, as the case maybe, it cannot be claimed as a matter of unfettered right…It is thus the administrative discretion of the competent authority to look into the circumstances and, if the same so warrant, then child care leave “can be” sanctioned up to 120 days and the right to grant of the same is not to be treated and read as if the leave “has to be” granted for 120 days.”

In this background, the Court stated that it would refrain from substituting its own discretion over administrative authority unless there was malafide involved which was not present in the current matter.

It was observed that the 15 days leave was in all likelihood the duration of the final examination of the petitioner's elder son. And as such there was no illegality in the order.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Suman Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 66