While explaining that the concept of the Child Care Leaves (CCL) was introduced into the service jurisprudence as a welfare measure to reconcile the competing demands of professional duties and parental responsibilities, the Delhi High Court has emphasised that CCL was designed to afford the working mothers flexibility to personally care for their children whenever circumstances so require, who often face practical difficulties in attending to their children’s needs due to official constraints.
The High Court clarified that while CCL is not an entitlement as of right, the discretion to deny cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mechanically, and it must be guided by the object and spirit of the rule, which is to support the welfare of the child and the legitimate needs of the mother.
Reference was made to Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which explicitly provides that a woman Government servant having minor children may be granted CCL for a maximum period of 730 days during her entire service, for purposes such as the child’s care, education, illness, or other pressing necessities.
Therefore, finding that the Extraordinary Leave Without Pay (EOL) was managed for the same period, the Court discarded the plea that CCL would disrupt the functioning of the school, and held that the denial of CCL, despite sanctioning EOL, would not only be arbitrary and discriminatory, but in defiance of the object and spirit of Rule 43-C of the Rules.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain observed that the petitioner had sought CCL to take care of her two children, aged about 15 and 17 years, who were studying in Classes X and XII respectively, and whose father, being a Marine Engineer, remained away from India for extended periods due to the nature of his duties at the time when the petitioner first applied for CCL on July 14, 2015.
The Bench also found that the petitioner’s applications for CCL were repeatedly denied or curtailed, largely on the ground that no substitute TGT (Mathematics) was available. However, during the same period, the respondents sanctioned EOL for 303 days. The contradiction between the refusal of CCL on grounds of ‘administrative inconvenience’ and the simultaneous approval of EOL undermines the respondents’ justification.
The Bench therefore quashed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) whereby it was held that CCL cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the same being subject to the smooth functioning of the school, and that long spells of CCL cannot be permitted if they disrupt such functioning.
Briefly, the petitioner, a mathematics teacher at a government school, sought CCL on multiple occasions to take care of her two children. Her first request for CCL was for 149 days, which was rejected by the Principal, claiming the absence of a substitute. She then applied again for CCL for 114 days, which was again denied. Thereafter, she applied for EOL, since her request for CCL was not being considered. The principal approved this request and sanctioned 303 days’ EOL.
Unhappy with the denial of CCL, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which refused any relief, holding that CCL isn’t a right that can be claimed, as it is subject to the smooth functioning of the school and that long periods of CCL cannot be allowed if they disrupt that operation.
Appearances:
Advocates Gouri Karunadas Mohanti, Suraj Kumar Singh, Saumya Shikkha, and Pawan Kumar Sharma, for the Petitioner
Advocates Avnish Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam, and Mohnish Sehrawat, for the Respondent
