Chhattisgarh High Court: Denying A Woman Child Care Leave Offends Her Fundamental Right To Life & Motherhood

The Court clarified that the female officers/employees of the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) are entitled to Child Adoption Leave as per Rule 43-B of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972, as the HR Policy of IIM, Raipur, was silent on this aspect. The Bench stated that child adoption/child care leave is not just a benefit but a right that supports the fundamental need of a woman to take care of her family.

A Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held, “Maternity/child adoption/child care leave cannot be compared or equated with any other leave as it is the inherent right of every women employee which cannot be simply denied on technical grounds. If a women is denied maternity leave, it offends her fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 12 of the Constitution. Every child has a right to love and be loved and to grow up in an atmosphere of love and affection and of moral and material security and this is possible only if the child is brought up in a family. The most congenial environment would, of course, be that of the family of his biological parents.”

Senior Advocate Abhishek Sinha appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Kishore Bhaduri represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

An Assistant Administrative Officer (Petitioner) at IIM Raipur was denied Child Adoption Leave by the employer. The Petitioner had adopted a two-day-old infant girl and subsequently applied for 180 days of Child Adoption Leave. The IIM denied her request, citing the absence of such a provision in its HR policy. Instead, they granted her 60 days of commuted leave, the maximum allowed under the Institute's policy for female staff adopting a child less than one year old.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court held, “Female Officers/employees of the Indian Institute of Management are entitled for Child Adoption Leave as per Rule 43-B of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972, as the HR Policy of IIM, Raipur, is silent on this aspect.”

The Bench clarified that there is no distinction between the natural, biological, surrogate or commissioning/adoption mother’s fundamental right to life and motherhood under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“There is no distinction between the natural, biological, surrogate or commissioning/adoption mothers and all of them have fundamental right to life and motherhood, contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and children born from the process of surrogacy/adoption have the right to life, care, protection, love, affection and development through their mother, then certainly such mothers have right to get maternity leave for above purpose,” the Court remarked.

The Bench further stated, “Motherhood never ends on the birth of the child and a commissioning/adoption mother cannot be refused paid maternity leave. A woman cannot be discriminated, as far as maternity benefits are concerned, only on the ground that she has obtained the baby through surrogacy/adoption. A newly born child cannot be left at the mercy of others as it needs rearing and that is the most crucial period during which the child requires care and attention of mother.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “It is held that the petitioner is entitled for 180 days child adoption leave as per the Rules, 1972. Since from para 8.22 of the writ petition it is evident the respondent No.2 has already granted 84 days child adoption leave to the petitioner as per Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, the respondent No.2 is directed to verify and adjust the same.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Lata Goyal v. The Union Of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:20426)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Abhishek Sinha; Advocate Khushboo Naresh Dua

Respondents: Senior Advocate Kishore Bhaduri; Advocates Sabyasachi Bhaduri and Harsh Dave

Click here to read/download the Judgement