In a writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court to challenge a judgment and order dated 11-04-2022, as well as an order dated 08-08-2022 by the Goa Human Rights Commission (Commission), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale noted that nothing survived in the petition since the purpose for which child care leave (CCL) was sought, no longer existed and stated that government official must act in aid of CCL policies.
A complaint dated 11-02-2021 was filed by the petitioner regarding the rejection of child care leave for his wife, who was an assistant accounts officer at the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, Bambolim, Goa (Institute). By a letter dated 07-08-2020, the wife applied to the Director of the Institute seeking a grant for child care leave of 266 days from 07-09-2020 till 30-05-2021 as her son needed her support to prepare for his 12th standard board exams.
The wife’s application was forwarded to the Directorate of Accounts, and a reply was received that the Directorate was exploring the possibility of posting a substitute in her place during her leave, and that an officer would be posted once her leave was sanctioned. Thereafter, the wife was granted child care leave for only 60 days, from 19-10-2020 to 17-12-2020, as opposed to the 266 days she had requested. Although the spouse availed the leave, she sought an extension because her child was struggling in his studies and required constant support and regular supervision during his crucial academic year. Her application for said extension was refused by a memorandum dated 09-12-2020.
After availing 60 days, the wife sought reconsideration for the extension of child care leave, but the same was rejected, stating that it was contrary to the extant policy of the Department. Aggrieved, the husband filed a complaint before the Commission, and, upon an inquiry, the Commission disposed of the complaint, finding no violation of human rights by the Department. Subsequently, the husband filed a review application seeking to have the said order reviewed, which was also rejected. Therefore, he filed the present petition.
The petitioner submitted that the rejection of his wife’s 6 months’ child care leave was against the Circular dated 20-02-2013 of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), warranting strict action against the Officer for violation of basic human rights of his child, who was deprived of his mother’s assistance in his crucial academic year.
The court perused the said circular and stated that it required the Department Heads, vested with the authority to grant child care leave, to seek the government’s approval before rejecting any request seeking child care leave. It was also stated that the circular dated 27-06-2014 provided that the minimum period of child care leave that may be granted to a female government employee shall not be less than 6 months, depending upon the balance period of leave available to her credit. Hence, the Court found it clear that the Officer concerned had failed to adhere to the child care leave policy applicable at that time.
Further, the Court said that by providing income security and institutional support, the legislation seeks to ensure that motherhood does not operate as a source of disadvantage in the workplace but is accommodated as a socially valuable function, warranting protection and respect.
It was stated that the petitioner’s child required his mother’s support and presence during his 12th standard exams, but due to non-adherence to the policy framed by the DoPT, the child was deprived of the same. The Court said that even if the Department was understaffed, the Director ought to have referred the petitioner’s request, with her own recommendation to refuse the child care leave, to the Minister concerned, who would then have taken the decision.
Hence, the Court held that there was a lapse by the official concerned in adhering to the terms of the policy. Further, noting that the purpose for which the child care leave was sought no longer existed, the Court stated that nothing in the petition survived as of that date.
Lastly, the Court held that government officials must act in aid of the relevant and prevailing policies regarding child care leave to secure the objects of such policies and disposed of the petition.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Vithal Naik
For Respondent – Ms. Sulekha Kamat (Additional Government Advocate)
