Right To Motherhood Cannot Be Denied On Technical Grounds | Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Child Adoption Leave As Fundamental Right | Orders IIM Raipur To Grant Full Leave Under CCS Rules
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru has held that women employees of the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Raipur are entitled to Child Adoption Leave in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, as the institution’s Human Resource Policy is silent on this aspect. The Court quashed the orders denying the petitioner such leave and directed the respondent authorities to grant 180 days of Child Adoption Leave after adjusting the leave already availed. The Court further held that the denial of this right amounted to the infringement of the fundamental rights protected under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, employed as an Assistant Administrative Officer at IIM Raipur since 2013, adopted a two-day-old infant girl on 20 November 2023. Consequently, she applied for Child Adoption Leave for 180 days in accordance with Rule 43-B of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 ("CCS Rules"). The respondent institute, however, rejected the request citing the absence of such provision in its Human Resources Policy. Instead, the petitioner was granted 60 days of Commuted Leave as per Clause 14.6 of the HR Policy.
Despite repeated representations, the petitioner’s grievance remained unaddressed. The State Women Commission, upon examining the matter, recommended that IIM Raipur grant the petitioner 180 days of Child Adoption Leave along with Commuted Leave. However, IIM Raipur did not act on the recommendation and instead granted 84 days of Adoption Leave under the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, and 60 days of Commuted Leave.
Meanwhile, IIM Raipur challenged the Commission's recommendation through WPC No. 2461/2024, which was allowed. Nevertheless, the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue legal remedies regarding her Child Adoption Leave request. The present writ petition thus ensued.
In her submissions, the petitioner argued that Clause 1 of the IIM Raipur HR Policy clearly stipulates that in matters not expressly covered therein, Central Government rules shall apply. Accordingly, Rule 43-B of the CCS Rules mandates 180 days of Child Adoption Leave for female employees adopting a child below the age of one year. The petitioner asserted that denying such leave violated her constitutional rights, especially Article 21, which includes the right to motherhood and the right of the child to receive affection and care.
In response, the counsel for IIM Raipur maintained that the institute, established under the Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017, is an autonomous entity governed by its Board of Governors (BoG). According to the respondents, unless the BoG expressly adopts Central Government rules, they do not automatically apply. Furthermore, it was argued that employment matters concerning non-teaching staff did not constitute public duties amenable to writ jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on various Supreme Court and High Court rulings, including State of Maharashtra v Bhagwan and Army Welfare Education Society v Sunil Kumar Sharma to argue for the institute's autonomy.
The respondent also contended that, in the absence of explicit provision for Child Adoption Leave in its HR Policy, the institute had extended all permissible leave within the policy framework and thus acted in good faith.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru recorded: “For any other matter relevant to the service conditions of the employees not specifically covered in this Manual, the Institute shall be guided by the rules, norms and procedures as prescribed by the Government of India from time to time.”
It was observed: “Since the HR policy of the respondent No.2 is silent about the child adoption leave... they are required to adopt the Rules, 1972 framed by the Central Government wherein sub-rule (1) of Rule 43-B categorically provides for grant of 180 days child adoption leave.”
On the fundamental right aspect, the Court stated: “The participation of women in the workforce is not a matter of privilege, but a constitutional entitlement protected by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution; besides Article 19(1)(g).”
Further, the Court recorded: “Adoptive mothers, like all mothers, are capable of experiencing deep love and affection... Such bonds can be crucial for a child’s emotional and psychological well-being.”
Addressing the respondent’s arguments on maintainability, the Court stated: “It is trite law that a fundamental right under Articles 19/21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities.”
Relying on precedents like Lakshmi Kant Pandey v Union of India, the Court noted: “Right to life includes the right to motherhood and also the right of every child to full development.”
Rejecting the argument that IIM Raipur’s autonomy excludes it from constitutional obligations, the Court held: “There is no distinction between the natural, biological, surrogate or commissioning/adoption mothers and all of them have fundamental right to life and motherhood under Article 21.”
It was observed that: “Maternity/child adoption/child care leave cannot be compared or equated with any other leave... If a woman is denied maternity leave, it offends her fundamental right to life.”
The Court noted that becoming a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. It observed that whatever is required to facilitate childbirth or, as in the present case, adoption, the employer must act with sympathy and consideration. The Court recorded that physical difficulties inevitably arise for a working woman performing her duties while caring for a newborn or newly adopted child. In this case, the petitioner had adopted an infant girl aged just two days. Therefore, the provision of child adoption leave was not only appropriate but necessary to enable the petitioner to discharge her maternal responsibilities effectively.
Upon applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the case, the Court concluded that the impugned orders dated 18.12.2023, 03.01.2024 and 24.01.2024, by which Child Adoption Leave was denied to the petitioner, could not be sustained in law. Accordingly, those orders were quashed. The Court categorically held that the petitioner was entitled to 180 days of Child Adoption Leave in accordance with Rule 43-B of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. Furthermore, noting that IIM Raipur had already granted 84 days of Child Adoption Leave to the petitioner under the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017, the Court directed the respondent institution to verify and adjust the said period towards the total entitlement.
In view of these findings, the Court allowed the writ petition to the extent indicated, clarifying that the parties would bear their respective costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Ms Khushboo Naresh Dua, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with Shri Sabyasachi Bhaduri and Shri Harsh Dave, Advocates
Case Title: Lata Goyal v Union of India & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:20426
Case Number: WPS No. 6831 of 2024
Bench: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
[Read/Download order]
