Benefit Of Child Care Leave Available To Employees Working In Unaided Recognized Privately Managed Schools: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court was considering the issue of the entitlement of a teacher working with a recognised unaided private school to Child Care Leave.
The Delhi High Court has held that the benefit of Child Care Leave would be available to those employees working in recognised unaided and privately managed schools in Delhi, as it is available to the employees of the government schools.
The High Court was considering the issue of the entitlement of a teacher working with a recognized unaided and privately managed school to the benefit of Child Care Leave.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held, “Having discussed different kinds of leave having the character of money and also those not having the character of money, we lean on the provisions contained in Rule 111 of the Rules, 1973, which is in respect of leave of absence and does not distinguish between leave having the character of money and leave which does not have the character of money. Since irrespective of the fact as to whether a particular kind of leave has or does not have character of money, Rule 111 grants the benefit of leave of absence to an employee of a recognized private school, whether aided or unaided, at par with such employees working in a corresponding status in a government school, in our opinion, the benefit of CCL will be available to those employees working in unaided recognized and privately managed schools in Delhi as well, as is available to the employees of the government schools.”
Advocate Sermon Rawat represented the Appellant, while Advocate B.C. Pandey represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant instituted a petition seeking issuance of a direction to the respondent school to grant her CCL for the period between May 5, 2025, and September 30, 2025, on the ground that her son, who was in Class XII, was facing certain academic pressure. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge vide the impugned order, relying upon a judgment of the Single Judge in Beena Arora v. Directorate of Education (2017).
Reasoning
Explaining that the terms and conditions of Service of employees of recognised private schools are governed by the provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (DSE Act), the Bench stated that for teachers working in government schools in Delhi, in terms of the provisions of Rule 43(C) of the Leave Rules, 1972, CCL is a benefit which has been made available to them.
The Bench held that the definition of the phrase “Prescribed”, in terms of Section 2(q) of the DSE Act, means prescribed by the Rules, 1973 made under the DSE Act. The Bench also explained that the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, have been made under the rule-making power available to the Administrator under Section 28 of the DSE Act, and therefore, the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, are the Rules made under the DSE Act. “Rule 111 of the Rules, 1973, thus forms part of the Rules made under the DSE Act, and accordingly, the word “Benefits” occurring in Section 10(1) of the Rules, 1973, which is preceded by the word “Prescribed”, in our opinion, would include the benefit of leave as well”, it added.
The Bench further stated that the leave, which is having a character of money, if not availed, is encashed by the employee, whereas the leave that does not have the character of money, if not availed, cannot be encashed in terms of money. “CCL is one such leave, which, if not availed, cannot be encashed by the employee concerned”, it added.
Holding that the benefit of CCL will be available to those employees working in unaided, recognised, and privately managed schools in Delhi, the Bench allowed the appeal. Setting aside the impugned order, the Bench ordered, “The respondent School is directed to consider the prayer for grant of CCL made by the appellant afresh and decide the same with expedition.”
Cause Title: Sangeeta Negi v. Bharti Public School (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5058-DB)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Sermon Rawat, Aastha Vishwakarma
Respondent: Advocates B.C. Pandey, S.P. Kamrah, Puneet Batra, Aryavansh Kamrah, ASC Yeeshu Jain, Jyoti Tyagi, Vishruti Pandey, Sachin Garg