The High Court of Delhi has ruled that the action of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) in denying Child Care Leave (CCL) to a teacher citing administrative inconvenience, while simultaneously sanctioning her Extraordinary Leave (EOL) for the same period, is “arbitrary and discriminatory.”
A Division Bench comprising. Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had dismissed the teacher’s plea. The High Court directed the government to convert the petitioner’s 303-day EOL period into CCL.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Smt. Rajesh Rathi, a TGT (Mathematics) at the Government Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Hiran Kudna, New Delhi. She had challenged the CAT’s order of 09.07.2019, which dismissed her application seeking the grant of CCL and the conversion of her availed EOL into CCL.
The petitioner had sought CCL on multiple occasions, starting in 2015, to care for her two children who were in Classes X and XII. Her husband, a Marine Engineer, remained out of India for long durations for work.
On 14.07.2015, her application for 149 days of CCL was objected to by the school Principal (respondent no. 4) on the ground that no substitute Mathematics teacher was available. A subsequent application for 114 days was met with a similar response, stating the Principal had no objection if a substitute could be arranged.
The petitioner was later granted CCL for 78 days from 16.01.2016 to 02.04.2016. As her children’s Board Exams approached, she availed Earned Leave (EL) and later applied for EOL on 21.05.2017 after her CCL request was not considered. She was granted 27 days of CCL from 02.08.2017 to 28.08.2017, allegedly after being compelled to provide an undertaking not to seek CCL in the future.
Ultimately, her request for EOL was approved by an order dated 14.09.2017, sanctioning 303 days of EOL from 02.07.2017 to 30.04.2018.
Aggrieved by the denial of CCL and the forced availment of EOL, the petitioner approached the CAT, which dismissed her application. The CAT held that CCL cannot be claimed as a matter of right, is subject to the smooth functioning of the school, and that the petitioner had asked for “very long periods at a time” when she was one of only two Maths teachers.
Petitioner’s Submissions
The petitioner argued before the High Court that the CAT’s order was unsustainable and failed to appreciate the scope of Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which was intended to enable women employees to care for their children’s needs.
It was contended that applying for CCL for longer durations was bona fide, aimed at ensuring a guest teacher could be appointed for a fixed period to avoid academic disruption.
The petitioner submitted that the respondents’ actions were “arbitrary and mala fide” by taking the plea of teacher shortage to deny CCL, yet simultaneously sanctioning EOL for 303 days. This was termed a “discriminatory and vindictive approach.” It was highlighted that her husband’s absence and her elder son’s “severe psychological stress” during exams made her presence indispensable, and the denial of CCL forced her into EOL, causing financial hardship.
Respondents’ Submissions
The GNCTD (respondents) argued that CCL “cannot be claimed as a matter of right” and its grant is subject to the discretion of the competent authority and “contingent upon the exigencies of service.”
Relying on an Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 18.11.2008 from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the respondents contended that CCL cannot be permitted in a manner that disrupts the functioning of the institution. They submitted that the petitioner sought CCL for an “extraordinarily long duration” which “would have seriously impaired the academic functioning of the school.”
It was argued that Rule 43-C uses the term “may grant,” which confers discretionary power. The respondents denied any arbitrariness, explaining that EOL was granted “to mitigate her personal difficulties” while keeping the students’ interests in view.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, in its judgment authored by Justice Madhu Jain, analyzed the core issue: “whether the petitioner… is entitled, as a matter of right, to the grant of CCL… and whether the respondents acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily in denying CCL while granting EOL for the same period.”
The bench observed that the introduction of CCL (Rule 43-C) “was intended as a welfare measure to reconcile the competing demands of professional duties and parental responsibilities.”
The Court stated, “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 judgment cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Kakali Ghosh v. Andaman & Nicobar Admn. & Ors., (2014) 15 SCC 300, to note that CCL is intended not just for rearing but also to “look after any of their needs like examination, sickness, etc.”
The bench also referred to a previous Delhi High Court judgment in Amandeep Kaur v. Union of India & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13044, which held that CCL serves a “larger societal goal and public interest” under Article 21 and that “Public employers should not ordinarily be denying the CCL to a mother unless it is for compelling and overriding public interest considerations.”
The High Court found a critical contradiction in the respondents’ actions. “The record further reflects that the petitioner’s applications for CCL were repeatedly denied or curtailed, largely on the ground that no substitute TGT (Mathematics) was available. However, during the same period, the respondents sanctioned EOL for 303 days. The contradiction between the refusal of CCL on grounds of ‘administrative inconvenience’ and simultaneous approval of EOL undermines the respondents’ justification.”
The Court concluded: “It is worth noting that, if EOL could be managed for the same period, the plea that CCL would disrupt the functioning of the school loses its force. The denial of CCL, despite sanctioning EOL, therefore appears arbitrary and discriminatory, and not in consonance with the object and spirit of Rule 43-C of the Rules.”
In setting aside the CAT’s order, the High Court noted that the Tribunal “failed to notice” this contradiction, which indicated that the “administrative exigency was not so pressing so as to preclude the grant of CCL.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the CAT’s order dated 09.07.2019. The respondents were 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.”
