Child Care Leave Is Not Entitlement As Of Right; Discretion To Deny Same Can’t Be Exercised Arbitrarily Or Mechanically: Delhi High Court
The petition was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Madhu Jain, Delhi High Court
While observing that Child Care Leave was designed to afford working mothers flexibility to personally care for their children whenever circumstances so require, the Delhi High Court has held that CCL is not an entitlement as of right but the discretion to deny cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mechanically.
The petition was filed challenging the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain asserted, “While it is correct that CCL is not an entitlement as of right, the discretion to deny cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mechanically. 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.”
“The introduction of CCL into the service jurisprudence was intended as a welfare measure to reconcile the competing demands of professional duties and parental responsibilities. Recognizing that working mothers often face practical difficulties in attending to their children’s needs due to official constraints, CCL was designed to afford them flexibility to personally care for their children whenever circumstances so require”, it further added.
Advocate Gouri Karunadas Mohanti represented the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Avnish Ahlawat represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner, employed as a TGT (Mathematics) at the Government Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, sought Child Care Leave (CCL) on multiple occasions to take care of her two children who were studying in Classes X and XII, while her husband, a Marine Engineer, remained out of India for long durations due to work. The petitioner first applied for CCL for 149 days but the Respondent Principal of the school, objected to the same on the ground that no substitute Mathematics Teacher was available in the school, and the said request could only be allowed after arranging a substitute Mathematics Teacher, as the same was essential for the welfare of the students.
The petitioner again applied for CCL for a period of 114 days. Being aggrieved by the denial of CCL, the petitioner filed the application before the Tribunal, seeking directions to the respondents to convert all the EOL taken into CCL. The Tribunal, dismissed the application on the ground that CCL could not be claimed as a matter of right. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the Government of India, through its Department of Personnel and Training, vide an OM intimated that CCL can be granted for a maximum period of 730 days during the entire service period to a woman government employee for taking care of up to two children. Reference was made to Rule 43-C of the Rules, 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.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted 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.
The Bench also noticed 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 simultaneous approval of EOL undermines the respondents’ justification”, it added.
“The denial of CCL, despite sanctioning EOL, therefore appears arbitrary and discriminatory, and not in consonance with the object and spirit of Rule 43-C of the Rules”, the Bench held.
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench directed the respondents to take necessary steps to convert all the periods of EOL availed by the petitioner into CCL, in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.
Cause Title: Smt. Rajesh Rathi v. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ( Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC: 9855-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Gouri Karunadas Mohanti, Suraj Kumar Singh, Saumya Shikkha, Pawan Kumar Sharma
Respondent: Standing Counsel Avnish Ahlawat, Advocates Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam, Mohnish Sehrawat