Case law:
Whether a woman employee of the Central Government can ask for uninterrupted 730 days of Child Care Leave (hereinafter referred to as, – ‘the CCL’) under Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules’).
The Supreme Court in the matter of Kakali Ghosh Vs. Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 4506 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No. 33244 of 2012 held that a woman employee of the central government can get uninterrupted leave for two years for childcare, which also includes needs like examination and sickness. A bench of justices At SC set aside an order of the Calcutta HC which had held that the central civil services (leave) rules did not permit uninterrupted CCL (childcare leave) for 730 days. It said “On perusal of circulars and Rule 43-C , it is apparent that a woman government employee having minor children can avail CCL for a maximum period of 730 days i.e. during the entire service period for taking care of upto two children”
FACTS OF THE CASE
· The appellant initially applied for CCL for six months commencing from 5th July, 2011 by her letter dated 16th May, 2011 to take care of her son who was in 10th standard
· Appellant intimated that she is the only person to look after her minor son and her mother is a heart patient and has not recovered from the shock due to the sudden demise of her father; her father-in-law is almost bed ridden and in such circumstances, she was not in a position to perform her duties effectively.
· While Appellant’s application was pending, she was transferred to Campbell Bay in Nicobar District (Andaman and Nicobar) where she joined on 06th July, 2011. By her subsequent letter dated 14th February, 2012 she requested the competent authority to allow her to avail CCL for two years commencing from 21st May, 2012. However, the authorities allowed only 45 days of CCL by their Office Order No. 254 dated 16th March, 2012.
· Appellant had first approached Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta for getting leave. The tribunal had ordered dated 30th April, 2012 in her favour but the High Court reversed the order.
· The High court passed the order dated 18th September, 2012 on a petition filed by appellant a woman government employee Kakali Ghosh challenging government’s decision not to grant her leave of 730 days for preparing her son for secondary/senior examinations. It said that CCL can be granted only according to the conditions mentioned in the sub r.(3) of r.43-C and that one of the conditions is that CCL shall not be granted for more than three spells in a calendar year. It means that CCL is not to be granted for a continuous period, but only in spells
· Appellant aggrieved by the judgment moved the apex court.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court passed the order on a petition filed by Appellant Kakali Ghosh challenging the government’s decision not to grant her leave of 730 days for helping her son prepare for examinations
· The apex court set aside the High Court’s order. It said “We set aside the impugned judgment dated September 18, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair and affirm the judgment and order dated April 30, 2012 passed by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt/ production of this judgment,”
· Also in the present case, the appellant claimed for 730 days of CCL at a stretch to ensure success of her son in the forthcoming secondary/senior examinations (10th/11th standard). It is not in dispute that son was minor below 18 years of age when she applied for CCL. This is apparent from the fact that the competent authority allowed 45 days of CCL in favour of the appellant. However, no reason has been s\own by the competent authority for disallowing rest of the period of leave.
· Also in the present case the respondents have not shown any reason to refuse 730 days continuous leave. The grounds taken by them and as held by High Court cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned above.
· For the reasons aforesaid, the supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 18th September, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair and affirm the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2012 passed by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt/production of this judgment.
· The appeal is allowed with aforesaid directions. No costs.
Speak Your Mind