CCS Rules | Once Employee's Study Leave Is Sanctioned, State Can't Reduce Salary Based On Subsequent Amendment: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once an employee was given study leave for pursuing a three-year LLB Degree course, he became entitled to full leave salary in terms of the unamended Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules.

The Court clarified that the subsequent amendment, which reduced the leave salary to 40% could not be applied retrospectively to a leave that had already been sanctioned.

Rejecting the State's contention Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua stated that “Petitioner had applied for study leave through proper channel and the Government had sanctioned study leave in his favour on 01.09.2023, i.e. prior to the issuance of Finance Department's notification dated 07.08.2024, hence, the petitioner is eligible for 100% leave salary during the sanctioned study leave for pursuing three years LLB Degree Course”

The petitioner, a Labour Inspector posted in the Solan Circle of Labour & Employment department, qualified the entrance examination for pursuing 3 3-year LLB degree at H.P. University, for which he sought 3 years leave.

Thereafter, he was granted study leave which was to be availed in different spells as per Rule 51 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and was to be paid full salary.

While the petitioner was on the third spell of the study leave, the State of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification amending Rule 56 of the CCS (Leave) Rules.

According to the amendment that a government servant on study leave would draw leave salary equivalent to 40% of the pay he drew while he was on duty before starting the leave.

Based on the notification, the state then applied this amended rule to the petitioner, slashing his salary for the remaining period of study leave.

Aggrieved by the state's decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.

The Court observed that even though the leave was granted in different spells, the initial leave was granted before the notification came into effect, and the notification cannot be applied retrospectively.

Thus, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to 100% of the leave salary and directed the state to pay the arrears to the petitioner.

Case Name: Sant Ram v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No. 14496 of 2024

Date of Decision: 13.08.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Click Here To Read/Download Order