Holding

The Court quashed the recovery orders, holding that faculty on AICTE‑sanctioned study leave are entitled to full salary and that State rules and later resolutions cannot override the AICTE Act.

Summary

The petitioners, who are Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Gujarat government engineering colleges, were granted study leave under the AICTE Quality Improvement Programme (QIP) to obtain a master's degree. While some received full salary during leave, others were paid only half salary, leading the State to issue recovery orders for the excess. The petitioners challenged these orders, arguing lack of hearing, that the 2016 and 2023 Government Resolutions and Gujarat Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 2002, cannot override the AICTE Act, and that they are entitled to full pay under AICTE guidelines. The Court held that the recovery orders violated natural justice, that the earlier resolutions were quashed and could not be applied retrospectively, and that the State rules are subordinate to the central AICTE Act. Consequently, the orders were set aside and the petitioners were directed to receive full salary for the study‑leave period.

Issues considered

Whether the impugned order of salary recovery violates principles of natural justice due to lack of hearing.
Whether the Government Resolution dated 03.02.2016 and the later resolution dated 21.12.2023 are applicable to the petitioners' study leave.
Whether Gujarat Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 2002 govern the salary entitlement of faculty on AICTE‑sanctioned study leave.
Whether the AICTE Act, 1987 and its guidelines override the State rules and entitle the petitioners to full salary.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to full salary during the period of study leave and the State can recover any amount.

Legislation cited

All India Council for Technical Education Act

Subjects

study leavefull salaryAICTEnatural justiceGujarat Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 2002QIPequal paysalary recoveryconstitutional lawArticle 14

Judgment

C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

Reserved On : 03/03/2026
Pronounced On : 12/03/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8475 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11602 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6776 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8476 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9015 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13772 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14343 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20116 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

==================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==================================================
CHEVALI SANDEEP SHAMBHULAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
HUNAIZA H QURESHI(8903) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. EKRAMA H QURESHI(7000) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIDHI VYAS, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2 in R/SCA/8475/2018 & R/SCA/11602/2018

MS DHRUTI PANDYA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2 in R/SCA/6776/2018, R/SCA/8476/2018 &
R/SCA/20116/2018

MS FORUM SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2 in R/SCA/9015/2018, R/SCA/13772/2018 &
R/SCA/14343/2018
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==================================================

Page 1 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

COMMON CAV JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Respective learned AGPs
waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the
respective respondents in the respective petitions.

1.1 With the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the matters are taken up for hearing.

1.2 Heard Mr. Ekrama Qureshi, learned advocate as also Mr.
Y.J.Patel, learned advocate for the respective petitioners and
Ms. Nidhi Vyas, Ms. Forum J. Shah, Ms. Dhruti Pandya, learned
AGPs for the respondents, in respective petitions, at length.

2. This batch of petitions raises common issues with regard
to the recovery of half of salary of the petitioners sought by the
respondent, as they have been paid full salary during period of
their study leave, and whether the petitioners are entitled to
receive full salary during the period of their study leave.
Therefore, these petitions are heard together and decided by
this common judgment.

THE SHORT FACTS:-

3. The petitioners herein are working as Asst. Professors and
/ or Lecturers in respective Government Engineering Colleges.
The petitioners were required to acquire higher degree so as to

Page 2 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

comply with All India Council for Technical Education
(hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’) Guidelines from time to
time and to avail the benefits of Career Advancement Scheme,
they need Promotional Qualifications. Most of the petitioners, at
the time of their appointment, were holding Bachelor Degree in
respective engineering branches plus cleared Graduate Aptitude
Test in Engineering (GATE). The Gujarat Public Service
Commission, in its advertisement, prior to their appointment,
clearly states that after getting appointment, the candidates will
have to acquire Master Degree in respective branches. If the
candidate fails to acquire Master Degree within aforesaid time,
his / her increment will be stopped.

4. As per the guidelines of the AICTE, the Faculty members
can be permitted to pursue further studies for a period of five
years under Qualify Improvement Program (hereinafter referred
to as ‘QIP’) policy on deputation drawing full salary without
treating it as break in service.

5. Accordingly, all the petitioners applied for their study
leave and same was sanctioned by the respondent. In most of
the cases, petitioners were paid full salary during the period of
their study leave and some of the cases, half of the salary paid
to the respective petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent felt
that as per the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2002’) as also as per
Government Resolution dated 03.02.2016, the petitioners are
entitled to receive only half salary and thereby, sought recovery

Page 3 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

from the respective petitioners, who have received full salary
and accordingly, not paid fully salary to other petitioners
concerned.

6. By way of these petitions, the respective petitioners have
challenged the impugned order of recovery sought by the
respondent and for those petitioners who have not been paid
fully salary during their study leave, sought relief to receive full
salary from the respondent.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:-

7. Mr. Ekrama Qureshi, learned advocate and Mr. Y.J.Patel,
learned advocate for the respective petitioners have made the
following submissions: -

7.1 The impugned order of recovery is arbitrary,
unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice.
None of the petitioners have been granted an opportunity of
hearing before issuing impugned order of recovery.

7.2 The Government Resolution dated 03.02.2016 is quashed
and set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
Special Civil Application Nos.12926 of 2021 & allied matters
vide judgment dated 23.09.2022, which is confirmed by the
Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1380 of 2024 &
allied matters, vide its order dated 10.09.2024. Consequently,
impugned order of recovery passed taking into account the
aforesaid G.R., is not sustainable in law.

Page 4 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

7.3 Even as per the aforesaid G.R.dated 03.02.2016, nowhere
it has been prescribed that during the study leave, Asst.
Professors/ Lecturers will get half salary. Furthermore, as per
Clause-7 of the aforesaid G.R., the study leave granted for
programme under QIP or non QIP stands on similar footing.
Accordingly, there was no bifurcation in regard to payment of
salary to candidate who opts for QIP or non QIP programme
during the study leave period.

7.4 The stance of the respondent on the basis of Government
Resolution dated 21.12.2023 that all petitioners have not
acquired higher education as per QIP programme, they are not
entitled to receive full salary, is erroneous and illegal. The case
of the petitioners is not governed by the aforesaid resolution
dated 21.12.2023, passed subsequently after effecting recovery.
The aforesaid G.R. cannot apply retrospectively.

7.5 The respondent has wrongly relied upon the Rules 77 and
84 by ignoring Rules 77(3)(b) read with Rule 78 and 85 of the
Rules, 2002. As per the aforesaid Rule 77(3)(b), in a case of
academic subject, any leave granted, such Rules, 2002 would
not apply. Likewise, as per Rule 85 employee concerned is
entitled to receive study allowance, but undisputedly, it is not
paid to any of the petitioners. Furthermore, as per Rule 78,
ordinarily twelve months study leave at any one time can be
granted, which shall not be exceeded save for exceptional
reasons and during his entire service, twenty-four months in all.

Page 5 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

Whereas in the present case, the petitioners have been granted
two years study leave at one go. Therefore, Rules 2002 would
not apply to the case of the petitioners.

7.6 The petitioners have been discriminated by not paying the
full salary, rather, the respondent sought recovery from them as
the respondent – Commissioner of Technical Education, Gujarat
State vide its Office order dated 10.09.2014 while deputing
Asst. Professor of concerned Engineering College for ME /
M.Tech programme, granted them full salary. Non-granting
similar benefits to the petitioners is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and it is also in violation of doctrine of
“Equal Pay for Equal Work”. As per one of the conditions of
granting study leave of respective petitioners, they would be
treated as on duty. There is no financial burden caused to
respondent during period of study leave as the workload of
respective petitioners is divided between other faculty
members.

7.7 The service conditions of the petitioners are subject to
regulations and guidelines issued by the AICTE from time to
time, which would entitle the petitioners to take study leave for
Career Advancement, with full pay. The Rules 2002 is a general
rule applicable to all government employees of the respondent –
State but regulations / guidelines of AICTE are special rules,
which override the general rule like Rules, 2002.

Page 6 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

7.8 Since this Court has already quashed the aforesaid
G.R.dated 03.02.2016 and as such, reference of the respective
petitioners was made by learned Single Judge in the aforesaid
decision, accordingly, they are entitled to receive full salary and
impugned order of recovery passed by the respondent requires
to be quashed and set aside.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-

8. Learned Asst. Government Pleaders appearing in the
respective petitions have made the following submissions: -

8.1 The claim of the petitioners is not sustainable in law,
inasmuch as, as per Resolution dated 03.02.2016 read with
Resolution dated 21.12.2023, none of the petitioners had taken
the admission in higher studies, i.e., M.E. / M.Tech., under QIP
category.

8.2 The petitioners had taken admission under sponsored
category unlike obtained admission under QIP category as per
the procedure laid down by the AICTE. In these circumstances,
as per the aforesaid Resolution read with the Rules, 2002, all
petitioners are entitled to receive only half salary.

8.3 As per Government Resolution dated 21.12.2023, the
Commissioner of Technical Education is empowered to grant
full time deputation to the Professors selected in the Institution

Page 7 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

under QIP as per guidelines issued by AICTE from time to time.
Whereas for rest of the Professors, to avail benefits of Career
Advancement Scheme, it can be granted study leave as per the
Rules, 2002 subject to certain conditions.

8.4 The Professors, who got admission for higher studies
under QIP quota as per procedure laid down by the AICTE, are
entitled to receive full salary during the period of study leave.
The rest of the Professors, who got admission in other Institute /
College, which would not fall under QIP center, as approved by
AICTE for QIP programme, are not entitled to receive full
salary. Since all petitioners got admission in other than QIP
centers, they are not entitled to receive full salary.

8.5 Making the above submissions, request is made to reject
the present writ petitions.

9. No other and further submissions are made by the learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties.

ANALYSIS:-

10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and after going through their pleadings and documents
made available on record, it appears that all the petitioners
have been appointed by the respondent as Asst. Professors /
Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges, who are holding
basic degree of engineering in respective branches plus cleared

Page 8 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

GATE. As per service conditions and AICTE norms, petitioners
require to acquire master degree, otherwise, they would not get
increment. Accordingly, they had availed for study leave to get
admission in higher study, which was granted by the
respondent. It further appears that some of the petitioners have
been paid full salary and for others, half salaries have been paid
to them during the period of their study leave. Thus,
respondents have decided to effect recovery of half of the salary
from the respective petitioners who received full salary.
Consequently, the impugned order of recovery came to be
passed.

IMPUGNED ORDER OF RECOVERY VIOLATES
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE:-

11. It is undisputed that before passing impugned order of
recovery, no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the
petitioners. The impugned order is, on face of it, violative of
principles of natural justice and only on this basis, it is required
to be quashed and set aside.

NON-APPLICABILITY OF GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION
DATED 21.12.2023 TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS: -

12. It can be seen from the impugned order that aforesaid
Government Resolution dated 03.02.2016 was taken note of
while effecting recovery. The said Resolution has already been
quashed and set aside by the Coordinate Bench of this Court

Page 9 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

vide judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed in SCA No.12926 of
2021 & allied matters, as also confirmed by the Division Bench
vide its order dated 10.09.2024 passed in LPA No.1380 of 2024
& allied matters.

12.1 In the said decision in para-24, the Coordinate Bench has
taken note of these petitions, by referring the fact that the
respondent authorities have started recovery from present
petitioners concerned. It has been held that aforesaid
Resolution dated 03.02.2016 runs contrary to the provisions of
AICTE Act, 1987 and guidelines framed thereunder. It is settled
law that provisions of AICTE Act, 1987 and guidelines framed
thereunder would have to be followed over any inconsistent
Resolution passed by the State. It has been further held in said
decision that provisions of the Rules, 2002 would not be
applicable to the petitioners concerned who are eligible for
pursuing further studies as per QIP policy of AICTE as they
would be granted study leave with salary on deputation for
duration of course. It has been so held that the Rules, 2002
would be applicable in normal circumstances and it cannot
override provisions of Central Act, i.e., AICTE Act, 1987, if they
are not consistent with the same. Thus, in view of the aforesaid
position, the basis of recovery sought to be effected by the
respondent would fall; rather, it would not stand anymore so far
as present petitioners are concerned.

13. The respondent is placing heavy reliance upon

Page 10 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

Government Resolution dated 21.12.2023, undisputedly, which
was issued after passing of impugned order of recovery and /or
non-granting of full salary to some of the petitioners as the
impugned order of recovery came to be passed in the year 2018.
Such stance of the respondent is not legally sustainable,
inasmuch as the aforesaid Resolution cannot be applied
retrospectively in absence of anything in this regard expressly
observed in the said resolution. Furthermore, the petitioners
cannot be put to disadvantageous situation.

13.1 The respondent is now trying to distinguish the cases of
the petitioners than other Professors who got admission in QPI
center as selected under QIP quota as per AICTE guidelines.
According to the respondent, as per aforesaid Resolution dated
21.12.2023, the Professors who applied for higher studies and
out of all, those Professors who have been selected under QIP
category, only those Professors are entitled to receive full
salary. Whereas, the rest of Professors who applied for higher
study would be governed by the Rules, 2002.

13.1.1 This distinction is not at all applicable so far as case
of the present petitioners is concerned, inasmuch as their case
would not be governed by the said Resolution dated 21.12.2023;
rather it would be governed by the Resolution dated 03.02.2016
under which petitioners’ study leave sanctioned by the
respondent.

Page 11 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

13.1.2 The said Resolution dated 03.02.2016 would not
remotely suggest any such distinction which is sought to be
carved out by the respondent. It nowhere suggested in the said
Resolution that full salary will not be paid to the Professors who
are going for higher studies other than QIP centers approved by
the AICTE under QIP programme. The clause 7 of said
Resolution is relevant and its fair translation reads as under: -

“7. Study leave will be granted only for admission into
IIT/NIT/QIP Centers/GTU/NBA Accredited PG Programms /
Centers of Excellence / Recognized University and other
Institutions for the purpose of pursuing higher studies of
quality M.E./M.Tech/Ph.D.”

13.1.3 As can be seen from the said Clause 7, the study
leave can be granted only in cases where Professor concerned
gets admission in the Institution referred in the clause, which
includes QIP centers. It is not the case of respondent that any of
the petitioners got admission in other institution than
mentioned in aforesaid Clause 7. Thus, stance of the respondent
by placing reliance upon aforesaid Resolution dated 21.12.2023
is not only arbitrary but contrary to its own resolution dated
03.02.2016, albeit quashed by this Court.

NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES, 2002:-

14. It would be apt to refer to the relevant provisions of the
QIP policy, the AICTE Act, 1987 as also Rules, 2002, which read
as under:-

Page 12 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

: Quality Improvement Programme policy of All India Council
for Technical Education :

“INTRODUCTION

The Government of India launched the Quality improvement
Programme in the year 1970. One of the main objectives of
the programme is to upgrade the expertise and capabilities of
the faculty members of the degree level institutions in the
country. The programme is now being implemented and
monitored by All India Council for Technical Education. In
"Quality Improvement Programme" only sponsored teachers
are eligible for admission to both Master's & Doctoral Degree
Programmes, with the aim to enable the teachers to acquire
Master's & Doctoral degrees and imbibe in them a culture of
research and better teaching educational capabilities by
exposing them to the environment of the institutes of study.

There are three main activities under QIP serving the faculty
of degree level Engineering, Pharmacy & Polytechnic
Institutions:

(i) Providing opportunities to faculty members of the degree-
level engineering institutions to improve their qualification by
offering admissions to Master's and Ph.D. degree Programme.

(ii) Organizing Short Term Courses at the Major QIP Centers
for serving teachers.

(iii) Curriculum Development (CD) Cell activities which help
to improve class room teaching and learning.

There are total 106 QIP Centers in the country under three
main verticals.

Sl. No. Category Number of Centre
1 QIP Engineering 83
2 QIP Pharmacy 13
3 QIP Polytechnic 10

Page 13 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

MASTER'S AND DOCTORAL DEGREE PROGRAMMES

Opportunities are provided for faculty members of AICTE
recognized degree level institutions to improve their
qualification, by offering admissions in Masters and Ph.D.
degree programmes.

Eligibilities:
1. Full time regular/ permanent faculty members of AICTE
recognized Degree Level Colleges are eligible to apply.

2. The candidate should posses

For Master's Degree Programme

One year teaching experience at graduate level

A Bachelor's degree in the appropriate branch

For Ph.D. Degree Programme

Three year teaching experience at graduate level

A Master's degree in the appropriate branch

3. The candidate is selected and admitted, should be on
deputation and his/her normal salary and allowances are to be
paid by the parent institutions.

4. The candidate selected for admission under QIP will have
to execute an undertaking to serve his/her parent institution
for a minimum period of three years after completion of the
programme.”

: THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
ACT, 1987:

“CHAPTER III

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL

Page 14 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

10. Functions of the Council-It shall be the duty of the Council
to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring
coordinated and integrated development of technical
education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes
of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may-

xxx

(h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-service training of
teachers and identify institutions or centres and set up new
centres for offering staff development programmes including
continuing education of teachers;

(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula,
physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff
qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and
examinations;

(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other
fees;”

: GUIDELINES FOR STUDY LEAVE FOR THE FACULTY IN
AICTE APPROVED INSTITUTIONS :

Guidelines for grant of Study leave to Teachers and other
academic staff entering into service without M. Tech./Ph. D or
other higher qualification in Degree/ Diploma level Technical
Institutions are given below.

i) Study leave may be granted with Pay to the appointees such
as Assistant Professor/Assistant Librarian/Assistant Director
of Physical Education (Degree level) or in equivalent cadre
(Diploma level), to pursue for study (M.E/M.Tech./ Ph. D) or
research in the discipline directly related to his/her work.

(ii) The number of years to be put in after entry should be a
minimum of three years in regular service including the
probation period, keeping in mind the availability of teachers
in the discipline and the vacant positions.

Page 15 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

(iii) The paid period of study leave should be two/three years
for Master Doctorial level respectively. Two years may be
given in the first instance, extendable by one more year for
Ph. D program, if there is satisfactory progress report by the
Research Guide. Care should be taken to see that the regular
academic work is not disturbed while granting study leave.

Explanation: in computing the length of service, the time
during which a person was on probation or engaged as a
research assistant may be reckoned provided:

xxx
(vi) Study leave may be granted not more than twice during
one’s career. The maximum study leave admissible during the
entire service should not exceed five years.”

: Gujarat Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 2002 :

“57. Half Pay Leave : (1) (a) Government employee shall be
entitled to Half Pay Leave at the rate of ten days for each half
year’s service. This shall be credited in advance to the leave
account of the Government employee on first January and first
July of every calendar year.

(b) If a Government employee is appointed during the half
year, Half pay leave shall be credited to his leave account at
the rate of 5/3 days for each completed calendar month of
service. The Half pay leave at the credit of the Government
employee on the close of the half year shall be carried
forward to the next half year,

(c) All credit in the leave account shall be made for complete
days, the fraction being rounded of to the nearest day.

(2) (a) The credit for the half year in which a Government
employee is due for retirement from service or resigns shall
be afforded only at the rate of 5/3 days per completed
calendar month in the half year upto the date of retirement or
resignation. If the leave availed of is more than the credit so
due to him, necessary adjustment shall be made in respect of
leave salary overdrawn, if any;

(b) When a Government employee is removed or dismissed

Page 16 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

from the service or dies while in service, credit of Half pay
leave shall be allowed at the rate of 5/ 3 days per completed
calendar month in the half year in which he was removed or
dismissed from service or dies while in service. When the
quantum of Half pay leave is in excess of the leave enjoyed,
the over payment of leave salary shall be recovered.

77. Conditions for grant of study leave: (1) Subject to the
conditions specified in this Chapter, study leave may be
granted to a Government employee with due regard to the
exigencies of public service to enable him to undergo, in or
out of India, a special course of study consisting of higher
studies or specialised training in a professional or a technical
subject having a direct and close connection with the sphere
of his duty.

(2) Study leave may also be granted -

(a) for a course of training or study tour in which a
Government employee may not attend a regular academic or
semi-academic course if the course of training or the study
tour is certified to be of definite advantage to Government
from the point of view of public interest and is related to
sphere of duties of the Government employee;

(b) for the purpose of studies connected with the frame work
or background of public administration subject to the
conditions that

(i) the particular study or study tour should be approved by
the authority competent to grant leave,

(ii) the Government employee should be required to submit,
on his return, a full report on the work done by him while on
study leave; and

(c) for the studies which may not be closely or directly
connected with the work of a Government employee, but
which are capable of widening his knowledge in a manner
likely to improve his abilities as a Government employee and
to equip him better to collaborate with those employed in
other branches of the public service.

(3) Study leave shall not be granted unless

(a) It is certified by the authority competent to grant leave
that the proposed course of study or training shall be of

Page 17 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

definite advantage from the point of view of public interest;

(b) It is for prosecution of studies in subjects other than
academic or literary subjects; and

(c) The Department of Economic Affairs of the Ministry of
Finance, Government of India agrees to the release of foreign
exchange involved in the grant of study leave, if such leave is
out of India.

(4) Study leave out of India shall not be granted for the
prosecution of studies in subjects for which adequate facilities
exist in India or under any of the schemes administered by
the Department of Economic Affairs of the Ministry of Finance
or by the Ministry of Education, Government of India.

(5) Study leave shall not ordinarily be granted to a
Government employee

(a) who has rendered less than five years' service under the
Government; or

(b) who does not hold a gazetted post under the Government;
or

(c) who is due to retire, or has the option to retire, from the
Government service within the years of the date on which he
is expected to return to duty after the expiry of the leave.

(6) Study leave shall not be granted to a Government
employee with such frequency as to remove him from contact
with his regular work or to cause cadre disbursed owing to
his absence on leave.

78 Maximum period of study leave: The maximum period
of study leave, which may be granted to a Government
employee, shall be - (a) ordinarily twelve months at any one
time which shall not be exceeded save for exceptional
reasons; and (b) during his entire service, twenty-four months
in all (inclusive of study leave granted under any other rules).
Note The limit of twenty four months of absence includes the
period of vacation.

84. Leave salary during study leave (1) During study leave,
a Government employee shall draw leave salary equal to the
amount admissible during half pay leave.

Page 18 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

(2) The rate of exchange prescribed by the Union Government
for the conversion of leave salary (other than admissible
during the first one hundred twenty days of earned leave)
shall apply to the leave salary during study leave."

85. Conditions for grant of study allowance :
(1) A study allowance shall be granted to a Government
employee who has been granted study leave for the period
spent in prosecuting a definite course of study at a recognised
institution or in any definite tour of inspection of any special
class of work, as well as for the period covered by any
examination at the end of the course of study.

(2) Where a Government employee has been permitted to
receive and retain, in addition to his leave salary, any
scholarship or stipend that may be awarded to him from a
Government or non-Government source, or any other
remuneration in respect of any part-time employment,

(a) no study allowance shall be admissible in case the net
amount of such scholarship or stipend or remuneration
(arrived at by deducting the cost of fees, if any, paid by the
Government employee, from the value of scholarship or
stipend or remuneration) exceeds the amount of study
allowance otherwise admissible,

(b) in case the net amount of scholarship or stipend or
remuneration is less than the study allowance otherwise
admissible, the difference between the value of the net
scholarship or stipend or any other remuneration in respect of
any part-time employment and the study allowance may be
granted by the authority competent to grant leave.

(3) Study allowance shall not be granted for any period during
which a Government employee interrupts his course of study
to suit his own convenience : Provided that the authority
competent to grant leave or the Head of Mission may
authorise the grant of study allowance for a period not
exceeding fourteen days at a time during such interruption if
it was due to sickness.

(4) The period for which study allowance may be granted
shall not exceed twenty four months in all.

(5) Study allowance shall also be allowed for the entire period
of vacation during the course of study subject to the
conditions that -

Page 19 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

(a) the Government employee attends during vacation any
special course of study or practical training under the
direction of the Government or the authority competent to
grant leave, as the case may be; or

(b) in the absence of any such direction, he produces
satisfactory evidence before the Head of Mission or the
authority competent to grant leave, as the case may be, that
he has continued his studies during the vacation
Provided that in respect of vacation falling at the end of the
course of study it shall be allowed for a maximum period of 14
days. Note : The period of vacation during which study
allowance is drawn shall be taken into account in calculating
the maximum period of twenty four months for which study
allowance is admissible.”

15. As can be seen and it is not disputed by the respondent
that to avail increment and as a matter of course, the petitioners
were required to acquire Master Degree as per AICTE norms
being one of the conditions of appointment. As per aforesaid
guidelines issued by AICTE to grant of study leave is concerned,
it nowhere suggests that it should be granted with half pay;
rather it speaks of granting of study leave with pay.

15.1 The respondent is banking upon the Rules, 2002, more
particularly Rules 77 & 84, to advance its argument that
petitioners are entitled only for half pay. The respondent
conveniently forgot to take into account the Rule 77(3)(b) read
with the Rule 85. As per the said the Rules, 2002, it would apply
to all government employees who are also entitled to get study
allowance which is not granted to petitioner as pursuing higher
studies being academician.

Page 20 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

15.2 The Rules, 2002 being general rule, cannot override the
provisions of Central Act, like AICTE Act, 1987 and in a case of
conflict, the provisions of Central Act would prevail over the
Rules framed by the State. [See:- State of T.N. and another v.
Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others
reported in (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 104]

15.3 According to my view, the Rules, 2002 would not be
applicable to the case of petitioners who availed study leave as
per the Resolution dated 03.02.2016 and granted in pursuance
to the regulations / guidelines issued by the AICTE, to acquire
Master Degree by Professors.

CONCLUSION:-

16. In view of the foregoing observations, discussions and
reasons, I am of the view that impugned orders passed in
respective matters are unsustainable in law and thereby,
deserve to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned
orders are hereby quashed and set aside.

16.1 It is hereby held that the respondent is not entitled to
recover any amount from the petitioners; rather it is hereby
held that all the petitioners are entitled to receive full salary
during the period of their study leave.

16.2 Thus, it is directed to respondent to pay concerned the
petitioners the full salaries during the period of their study

Page 21 of 22
C/SCA/8475/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026

leave. The arrears of differential amount of salary of respective
petitioners for the period of their study leave shall be calculated

and paid to the respective petitioners on or before 31 st May,
2026, failing which, the said arrears amount shall be paid with

6% p. a. interest from 1st June, 2026 till its realization.

17. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the present writ
petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.

(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: LALJI DESAI(HC01558), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/03/2026 12:26:44

Page 22 of 22