Child Care Leave a Welfare Measure, Not to Be Refused Arbitrarily: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that Child Care Leave (CCL) is a welfare measure meant to support working mothers, and authorities cannot reject it in a mechanical or arbitrary manner.

A Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while allowing a petition filed by a Delhi government school teacher whose requests for CCL were repeatedly turned down by the school administration.

The Court said that while CCL is not an absolute entitlement, the discretion to deny it must be exercised in line with the purpose of the rule. “CCL is not an entitlement as of right, but 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 noted.

Emphasising the purpose of CCL, the judges added that the leave was introduced to help women balance official duties with 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,” the Court said.

The petitioner, a TGT (Mathematics) at a government school in Hiran Kudna, had sought CCL on several occasions to take care of her two children studying in Classes X and XII. Her husband, a Marine Engineer, stayed out of India for long stretches, leaving her as the primary caregiver.

Each time she applied, the school cited the non-availability of a substitute mathematics teacher and refused her request. While she was eventually granted short spells of CCL, the petitioner told the Court that at one stage she was made to give an undertaking that she would not seek CCL again.

When her son later fell unwell, she sought CCL once more, but the request was not considered. Instead, the authorities sanctioned nearly a year of Extraordinary Leave (EOL), forcing her to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking conversion of EOL to CCL. The Tribunal dismissed her plea, stating that long absences disrupt school functioning.

The High Court disagreed with that reasoning. It pointed out that if the administration could manage her absence during a long spell of EOL, it could not claim that granting CCL for the same period would hamper school functioning. The Bench called the denial of CCL, despite sanctioning EOL, “arbitrary and discriminatory, and not in consonance with the object and spirit of Rule 43-C.”

Setting aside the Tribunal’s order, the Court directed the authorities to convert the period of EOL availed by the petitioner into Child Care Leave as per rules.

For Petitioner: Mrs. Gouri Karunadas Mohanti, Mr. Suraj Kumar Singh Ms.Saumya Shikkha, and Mr.Pawan Kumar Sharma Advs.

For Respondents: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh Ms.Aliza Alam and Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

Case Title: SMT. RAJESH RATHI VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain

Date:  12 November