CCL Not An Automatic Entitlement Yet Cannot Be Withheld Arbitrarily: Delhi High Court Quashes Tribunal Order And Directs Conversion Of Extraordinary Leave Into Child Care Leave
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that the petitioner’s period of Extraordinary Leave must be converted into Child Care Leave and directed the authorities to give effect to this conversion. In addressing the dispute, the Court noted that although child care leave for women government employees is not an automatic entitlement, it cannot be withheld in an arbitrary or mechanical manner. The case concerned the petitioner’s applications for such leave to attend to her minor children, which were declined by the respondents even as they sanctioned Extraordinary Leave for the same duration. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and concluded that the refusal of Child Care Leave was unjustified.
The petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher (Mathematics) at a Government Senior Secondary School in Delhi, filed a petition challenging the order dated 09.07.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had dismissed her Original Application seeking conversion of her Extraordinary Leave into Child Care Leave.
The petitioner had applied for Child Care Leave (CCL) on multiple occasions beginning July 2015 to take care of her two minor children studying in Classes X and XII, while her husband, a Marine Engineer, remained out of India for prolonged periods. Her first request for 149 days of CCL was objected to by the school principal due to the absence of a substitute Mathematics teacher. A second request for 114 days of CCL met the same response, though the principal informed higher authorities that he had no objection if a substitute could be arranged.
In January 2016, she was granted 78 days of CCL. In 2017, as her children prepared for board examinations, she initially availed earned leave and later applied for Extraordinary Leave (EOL) because her CCL requests were not being acted upon. The principal rejected the EOL request on the ground that the pending CCL request needed disposal first, compelling her to take further earned leave. On 02.08.2017, she again sought CCL, and was required to give an undertaking not to seek CCL in future; 27 days were sanctioned. A subsequent request was not considered, and ultimately 303 days of EOL from 02.07.2017 to 30.04.2018 was sanctioned.
The petitioner argued that the denial of CCL was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to Rule 43-C of the CCS (Leave) Rules, whereas the respondents contended that CCL is not a matter of right and depends upon administrative exigencies, particularly the inability to arrange a substitute teacher. The Tribunal dismissed her O.A. on the ground that long spells of CCL cannot be permitted if they disrupt school functioning.
The Court examined Rule 43-C and relevant Government of India memoranda, noting that “a woman government servant having minor children may be granted childcare leave… for a maximum period of two years i.e. 730 days during the entire service for taking care of up to two children.” It recorded that the rule envisages purposes including “examination, sickness, etc.” and that CCL “may be availed of in more than one spell.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Kakali Ghosh, stating that the Apex Court had held that “the care of children is not for rearing the smaller child but also to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness, etc.” and that “CCL even beyond 730 days can be granted by combining other leave if due.”
The Court stated that “while it is correct that CCL is not an entitlement as of right, the discretion to deny cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mechanically.” It further observed that the grant of CCL 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 that the petitioner’s children were minors preparing for Board Examinations and that the husband’s occupation required long stays abroad. It recorded that “the petitioner’s applications for CCL were repeatedly denied or curtailed… However, during the same period, the respondents sanctioned EOL for 303 days.” The Court observed that this contradiction “undermines the respondents’ justification.”
It stated that “if EOL could be managed for the same period, the plea that CCL would disrupt the functioning of the school loses its force.” It recorded that denying CCL while approving EOL “appears arbitrary and discriminatory, and not in consonance with the object and spirit of Rule 43-C.”
The Court noted that the Tribunal “failed to notice that the respondents had, in fact, sanctioned EOL for the same period for which the applicant had sought CCL.” It further stated that this should have been viewed as “an indicative fact that administrative exigency was not so pressing so as to preclude the grant of CCL.” Therefore, “the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal… cannot be sustained.”
The Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal. It directed that “the respondents are directed to take necessary steps to convert all the periods of EOL availed by the petitioner from 02.07.2017 to 30.04.2018 into CCL, in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Gouri Karunadas Mohanti, Mr. Suraj Kumar Singh, Ms. Saumya Shikkha, and Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat (Standing Counsel), Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam, and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates.
Case Title: Smt. Rajesh Rathi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9855-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 10215/2019
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Madhu Jain
