High Court directs payment of full salary during study leave, quashes recovery orders

A single-judge bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat heard a batch of writ petitions challenging recovery notices issued by the State of Gujarat seeking half of salaries paid to assistant professors and lecturers during periods of study leave. The petitions raised the question whether the petitioners were entitled to full salary while on study leave taken to obtain higher qualifications in conformity with AICTE norms and departmental resolutions.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned recovery orders and held that the petitioners were entitled to draw full salary during the period of their sanctioned study leave. The court found that the recovery orders were "violative of principles of natural justice" because no opportunity of hearing had been given before seeking recovery. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The court further directed the respondent to compute and pay the arrears of differential salary to concerned petitioners on or before 31st May, 2026, failing which the amounts would carry interest at 6% per annum from 1st June, 2026 until realization.

Background: The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors or Lecturers in various government engineering colleges after holding bachelor degrees and clearing GATE, with service conditions requiring acquisition of a master’s degree for promotion under AICTE guidelines. They availed study leave to pursue M.E./M.Tech. programmes; some received full salary while others received half pay. The State thereafter initiated recovery from those who had been paid full salary, relying on the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002 and departmental resolutions dated 03.02.2016 and 21.12.2023.

Petitioners argued that the 03.02.2016 Government Resolution had been quashed by a Coordinate Bench and affirmed on appeal, that the 21.12.2023 resolution could not be applied retrospectively, and that AICTE guidelines (including the QIP policy allowing deputation with full pay) governed their service conditions. They contended that Rule 77(3)(b) and Rule 85 of the Rules, 2002—together with AICTE rules—supported payment with full pay, and that the recovery orders were arbitrary and breached Article 14 by discriminating between faculty.

The State maintained that admission under QIP alone entitled a teacher to deputation with full salary and that the petitioners had been admitted on sponsored (non-QIP) basis and therefore were only eligible for half pay under Rules 77 and 84. The court rejected the respondent’s reliance on the later resolution of 21.12.2023 as retrospective and held that the petitioners’ study leave sanctioned under the earlier departmental framework and AICTE norms could not be displaced by general state leave rules.

The court reviewed AICTE QIP policy, the AICTE Act, 1987 and the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002, observing that AICTE guidelines contemplated paid deputation for faculty admitted under QIP and that Clause 7 of the (earlier) departmental resolution contemplated study leave for admission into recognised institutions, including QIP centres: "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." The court noted that a Coordinate Bench had earlier quashed the 03.02.2016 resolution insofar as it conflicted with AICTE norms, and reiterated that central enactments and norms would prevail over inconsistent state rules. Finding that no hearing was afforded before recovery and that the State could not rely retrospectively on later policy, the court held the impugned recovery orders unsustainable, directed payment of full salary during study leave and ordered payment of arrears by 31st May, 2026 with interest thereafter.

Case Details: Case No.: C/SCA/8475/2018 NeutralCitation: 2026:GUJHC:18281 Case Title: Chevali Sandeep Shambhulal Versus State of Gujarat & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Hunaiza H. Qureshi, Advocate; Ekrama H. Qureshi, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Nidhi Vyas, Assistant Government Pleader; Ms. Forum J. Shah, Assistant Government Pleader; Ms. Dhruti Pandya, Assistant Government Pleader