[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Nainsi Naya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:10412
NAFR
AVINASH
SHARMA
Digitally signed by
AVINASH SHARMA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date: 2026.02.28
19:00:44 +0530
WPS No. 2299 of 2023
1 - Nainsi Naya D/o N.S. Thakur Aged About 28 Years R/o.08-E 3a Type, Hospital
Sector, Dalli Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Varsha Kerketta, D/o Lt. Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 29 Years R/o- H. No. 214, Old
Mines, Katkona, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Joint Director, Education Division Bastar, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
4 - District Education Officer, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Through Its Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sweksha Sharma appears on behalf of Ms. Aditi
Singhvi, Advocates.
For State/Res. : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy AG.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
27/02/2026
1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure
P/1) whereby permission to the petitioners for availing themselves of the
education leave to purse PhD course on the basis of No Work No Pay has been
cancelled.
2. Following reliefs have been prayed by the petitioners:-
10.1] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders setting aside the
impugned order dated 14.03.2023 in respect of the petitioners.
10.2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any
other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of
Teacher, Agriculture at Government High School, Kongud, District Kondagaon
(C.G.) and Government High School, Jaitpuri, District Kondagaon (C.G.)
respectively. It is pertinent to mention that petitioners were pursuing their Ph.D.
in Agriculture from the respondent University and after taking semester break
from the college of Agriculture of respondent university the petitioners had joined
their services. That, during their services the petitioners applied for unpaid leave
(no work no pay) to pursue and complete their Ph.D. That, the leave of the
petitioners was approved vide order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the respondent
Joint Director on the basis of no work no pay and thereafter the petitioners were
relieved from their respective schools. That, the petitioners have given their
joining before the respondent university for continuing their Ph.D. coursework. It
is pertinent to mention that earlier the petitioner no.1 only had applied for leave
before the Joint Director, Raipur and the office of respondent no.1 which was
rejected stating that the appointing authority of the petitioners would be the
appropriate authority to grant leave and hence the leave of the petitioner no.1
was not granted. That, however surprisingly after granting the leave to the
petitioners to pursue and complete their Ph.D. the respondent Joint Director has
passed the impugned order stating that earlier the petitioners had given an
application to the Secretary/respondent no.1 and a writ petition bearing W.P.S.
No. 992/2022 was also filed before this Hon'ble Court and the aforesaid facts
were hidden by the petitioners, therefore the leave of the petitioners has been
cancelled. But, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioners herein are not the
party in the said writ petition which is prima facie clear from the perusal of the
order passed by this Hon'ble Court. That, the petitioners are entitled to leave
under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Leave Rules, 2010 to complete her Ph.D..
it would be unjust and unfair to deprive the petitioners from completing their
Ph.D. course when they are more than half way to complete their Ph.D. course.
Petitioner No.1 requires around 1.5 years to complete her course and petitioner
no.2 requires only 5 months to complete her course. The petitioners have
already paid their fees and have already substantially completed their courses.
That, the maximum break that a candidate take from their Ph.D. course work is 4
semesters and the petitioners are presently on their semester breaks, if the
petitioners do not join after completion of 4 semester breaks then their
registration of Ph.D. automatically gets cancelled. A perusal of the rules would
show that when no other kind of leave can be sanctioned by the department
under the rules then the department can invoke Rule 31 and grant extra ordinary
leave to the candidate. Hence this Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier vide order dated
24.02.2023 (Annexure P/4), petitioners were granted permission to complete
their PHD (Agriculture) and research writing under No Work No Pay. In
pursuance of the said order, petitioners availed themselves of the education
leave granted to them. However, subsequently, vide impugned order dated
14.03.2023 (Annexure P/1), permission for education leave granted to the
petitioners by way of order dated 24.02.2023 was cancelled on the basis of order
dated 14.02.2022 (Annexure P/8) passed in WPS No.992 of 2022 which was
filed by other persons, stating that the petitioners have suppressed the facts
emanating from order dated 14.02.2022 passed in WPS No.992 of 2022 as also
rejection of earlier representation filed by the petitioners by Director of Public
Education, Raipur.
5. It is contended by learned State counsel that earlier application preferred by the
petitioners for grant of leave to complete their PhD course and research writing
has already been rejected, however, petitioners suppressed the said fact and
obtained permission to avail themselves of the education leave vide order dated
24.02.2023. Hence, the respondent authorities has rightly passed the order
dated 14.03.2023 and cancelled the education leave granted to the petitioners to
purse their PhD course.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as of now the petitioners have
completed their PhD course and have returned to their duties. Moreover, the
petitioners were granted education leave on the condition, among others, of No
Work No Pay, therefore, the Department has got nothing to lose. Further, the
leave was a education leave and the petitioners after availing themselves of the
same have also completed their PhD course, however, impugned order dated
14.03.2023 might come in the way and affect the service career of the
petitioners, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 may
be quashed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
with the petition.
8. From the perusal of record and upon considering the submissions advanced by
counsel for the parties, it appears that firstly, the application preferred by the
petitioners for grant of education leave was rejected, facts of which were
suppressed by the petitioners and they thereafter preferred an application for
grant of education leave which was duly considered by the respondent
authorities and petitioners were granted the permission to purse PhD course on
No Work No Pay basis.
9. Undoubtedly, the entire records are with the respondent authorities and it is
expected that the respondent authorities, while considering the application in
furtherance of which they granted permission to the petitioners for education
leave, would have taken into consideration of the fact of rejection of the earlier
application preferred by the petitioners for grant of education leave. As such,
respondent authorities cannot escape from their liability that they did not have
knowledge about the rejection of earlier application preferred by the petitioners.
10. Furthermore, whether right or wrong, once the petitioners have been granted
permission by the respondent authorities for education leave and the petitioners
have also completed their PhD course, therefore, impugned order might come
into the way of petitioner's service career, therefore, this Court is of the view that
so far as the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 in respect of petitioners is
concerned, the same cannot be held to be in accordance with law.
11. For the reasons state above, impugned order dated 14.03.2023 is quashed so
far as the present petitioners are concerned. As the petitioners have completed
their PhD course, as such, they are entitled to get all benefits of the same.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash
