The Delhi High Court reinforces that Child Care Leave is a crucial welfare measure for working mothers, not a discretionary favor. The judgment condemns the arbitrary denial of CCL and upholds its purpose of supporting genuine childcare needs.
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling reinforcing the welfare intent behind Child Care Leave (CCL), the Delhi High Court has held that although CCL is not an entitlement as a matter of right, authorities cannot deny it arbitrarily or mechanically. The judgment came in response to a petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had dismissed a government school teacher’s plea seeking the grant of CCL.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain emphasized that the purpose of CCL is deeply rooted in supporting working mothers who juggle professional duties with parental responsibilities.
“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 Bench observed.
The Court reiterated the policy goal behind introducing CCL, providing flexibility and support to working mothers. The Bench noted:
“CCL was designed to afford working mothers the ability to personally care for their children whenever circumstances so require.”
This welfare measure aims to ease the challenges faced by women balancing demanding jobs with essential childcare needs.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a TGT (Mathematics) at a Government Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, sought CCL on multiple occasions to care for her two children studying in Classes X and XII. Her husband, a Marine Engineer, was frequently out of India for extended periods, leaving her as the sole caregiver.
Key Facts:
- The petitioner first applied for 149 days of CCL, which was denied due to the alleged unavailability of a substitute Mathematics teacher.
- She later applied for 114 days, which was also rejected on similar grounds.
- Despite denying CCL, the school sanctioned 303 days of Extra-Ordinary Leave (EOL) during the same period.
- The petitioner approached the CAT seeking conversion of her EOL into CCL, but the Tribunal rejected her plea.
- Aggrieved, she filed a petition before the Delhi High Court.
Advocate Gouri Karunadas Mohanti represented the petitioner, while Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, appeared for the respondents.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court referred to the DoPT’s Office Memorandum and Rule 43-C of the CCS (Leave) Rules, which allow up to 730 days of CCL during a woman employee’s entire service period for purposes including:
- child’s education,
- illness, or
- any pressing necessities.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s children, aged 15 and 17, were in Classes X and XII, academic years widely recognised as crucial for students. Her need for Child Care Leave was further intensified by the prolonged absence of her husband, a Marine Engineer who remained outside India for extended periods.
Despite these compelling circumstances, the authorities repeatedly denied her CCL on the grounds of administrative inconvenience, citing the unavailability of a substitute Mathematics teacher. At the same time, they sanctioned long periods of Extra-Ordinary Leave, creating an inconsistency that the Court ultimately viewed as unjust and contrary to the very purpose of Child Care Leave.
The Bench termed this contradictory approach as “arbitrary and discriminatory.”
“The contradiction between the refusal of CCL on grounds of administrative inconvenience and simultaneous approval of EOL undermines the respondents’ justification.”
Allowing the petition, the Court directed:
- All periods of EOL taken by the petitioner must be converted into CCL,
- subject to rules and regulations applicable under Rule 43-C.
This decision strengthens the legal framework, ensuring that the welfare purpose behind CCL is not defeated by mechanical or unjustified administrative reasoning.
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
Case Title:
Smt. Rajesh Rathi v. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
W.P.(C) 10215/2019
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Child Care Leave
