Chhattisgarh HC: relaxed study-leave order cannot retrospectively reopen leave already sanctioned and used

Ruling on a batch of writ petitions by government doctors in Chhattisgarh seeking an extra year of study leave, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur held that a later government order relaxing the maximum period of study leave from 24 to 36 months could not retrospectively enlarge study leave already sanctioned and availed before that order was issued. The petitioners, who had been granted 24 months of study leave followed by extraordinary leave under the earlier rules, argued that the State's 2025 relaxation order automatically converted their sanction into 36 months, and that denying this was discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court held that a legal instrument is presumed not to operate retrospectively unless it expressly or by necessary implication says so, relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in CIT v. Vatika Township and Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam v. Esthappan Cherian: 'law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past.'

Since the relaxation order contained no express provision reopening earlier sanctions, and a later departmental order that had briefly granted the extended benefit to one doctor was itself cancelled, the petitioners could not claim the extra year either as a vested right or through legitimate expectation or parity. All the writ petitions were dismissed.