ROSHNI K vs SOUTHERN RAILWAY

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No.180/00607/2025

th
Wednesday, this the 28 day of October, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Roshni.K, Aged 34 years, W/o Sarang T.R., P.F.No. 15529801619,
Station Master (TI Control), Southern Railway, Kozhikode,
Residing at: Esperanza, Thattari Paramb, Cheruvatta, VTC,
Karuvattur, P.O.Parambil, Kozhikode 673 012, Kerala.
-Applicant
[By Advocates : Mr. T.C.Govindaswamy, Mrs.Kala T Gopi,
Mr. Kailesh T Gopi, Mrs. Nishitha Balachandran]
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by The General Manager, Southern
Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway,
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Palakkad
Division, Palakkad-678 002.
4. The Senior Divisional Operations/Manager, Southern Railway,
Palakkad Division, Palakkad-678 002.
-Respondents
[By Advocate : Ms.Sanjana R Nair]
The Original Application having been heard on 24.09.2026, the
Tribunal on 28.10.2026 delivered the following:
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

2
O R D E R
Applicant is a Station Master (TI Control) in Southern Railway,
Kozhikode, who is aggrieved by the rejection of the application for Child
Care Leave for 18 months, which was submitted in extreme compelling
circumstances.
2. The applicant had started her service as Station Master in
Palakkad Division on 09.01.2023. She gave birth to a girl child on
24.02.2025. She had been on maternity leave till 19.07.2025 and rejoined
duty on 20.07.2025. Details in the amended O.A. indicate that thereafter,
she availed Child Care Leave for 29 days from 25.07.2025 to 22.08.2025.
Annexure-A3 shows that from 23.08.2025 she had applied for Child Care
Leave for 90 days, but leave for 30 days alone was granted till 21.09.2025.
Annexure-A5 indicates that she had applied for Child Care Leave for 30 days
from 22.09.2025 to 21.10.2025, which was sanctioned.
3. Further, it is submitted that she had applied for leave without
allowance from 22.10.2025 to 07.01.2026, which was rejected. Thus she
rejoined duty on 22.10.2025. Then she availed casual leave on 23.10.2025,
24.10.2025, 26.10.2025, 29.10.2025 and 30.10.2025. Then she had applied
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

3
for leave without allowance from 01.11.2025 to 07.11.2025, which was
allowed. Later, Annexure-A12 shows that she applied for leave without
allowances from 08.11.2025 to 27.11.2025, which also was allowed.
Thereafter, she applied for leave without allowances from 28.11.2025 to
09.01.2026, however, leave was sanctioned only till 27.12.2025. Then
under Annexure-A14 she applied for Child Care Leave for 18 months from
03.12.2025 or if it was not sanctionable, Leave Without Allowances from
03.12.2025 to 09.01.2026 and thereafter, Child Care Leave for 180 days
from 28.12.2025. The grievance of the applicant is that, by Annexure-A18
order dated 27.12.2025 the application was rejected; aggrieved by the
same, she has approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Declare that Annexure-A18 is arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable
and hence, unconstitutional and quash the same;
(ii) Issue an order or direction commanding the Respondents to consider
and sanction the Applicant's request for Child Care Leave for a period of
18 months, commencing from 09.01.2026, strictly in accordance with
Rule 551(E) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I;
(iii) Declare that the action of the Respondents in not taking any
decision on the Applicant's representations and leave applications for
Child Care Leave is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India;
(iv) Issue a direction to the Respondents to treat the period during which
the Applicant was compelled to take Casual Leave and Extraordinary
Leave on account of the non-grant of Child.“
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

4
4. According to the applicant, immediately after she rejoined duty on
22.10.2025, her application for further leave was rejected, she was directed
to attend training. But owing to the continued difficulty in caring for their
infant child, she was constrained to avail casual leave on 23.10.2025,
24.10.2025, 26.10.2025, 29.10.2025 and 30.10.2025. Necessity to take
casual leave repeatedly was only on account of the absence of any
alternate care giver for the minor child and the compelling family
circumstances faced by her. She was compelled to manage the
professional responsibilities of a demanding operational post while
simultaneously attending the constant needs of her infant child, without
any support from her own family or that of the spouse, she is left to
struggle completely on her own, like a lone individual trying to survive in
unfamiliar circumstances. This situation has caused severe physical, mental
and emotional hardship.
5. It is further submitted that there were circumstances
compelling her to avail leave either Child Care Leave, Casual Leave or Leave
Without Allowances. Her parents are aged and unable to take care of the
child. Similarly, her father-in-law is visually challenged, thus they are not
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

5
getting support from both the families. Her husband is an Assistant Manger
in Air Traffic Control at Calicut International Airport. Both herself and her
husband are employed in operational, highly sensitive posts, involving shift
duties and continuous engagement with traffic regulation, operational
safety and security related responsibilities leaving no scope for fixed
working hours or regular child care arrangements. In the circumstances,
she had no option, but to apply for further Child Care Leave for 18 months
as shown in Annexure-A14.
6. Since she had availed three spells of Child Care Leave in 2025,
was unable to upload her further application for leave through HRMS
portal and that is why she gave Annexure-A14 application through
conventional mode, but that was not considered and rejected through
Annexure-A18, which is illegal.
7. Referring to Annexure-A10 show cause notice issued to her,
she submitted that, her husband, without her knowledge and consent, had
addressed a letter to the Hon'ble Minister of State for Railways highlighting
the plight and hardships faced by the applicant and her minor child.
Thereafter, the said communication was issued to her asking to explain why
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

6
action shall not be taken for the act of indiscipline and violation of Conduct
Rules, within 7 days. According to her, she gave detailed reply to
Annexure-A10, the explanation was found satisfactory and no misconduct
was attributable to her. Rule 551(E) of Indian Railway Establishment Code
Volume-I governing Child Care Leave is a welfare oriented provision
intended to enable a working mother to effectively discharge her maternal
responsibilities during the formative years of the child. It does not prohibit
grant of Child Care Leave in one continuous spell, subject to overall ceiling
of 730 days. Therefore, refusal to consider or rejection of Annexure-A14 is
unsustainable.
8. Further, the very nature of the leave, which can be combined with
any other kind of leave, indicates that it can be sanctioned flexibly, taking
into account the exigencies faced by a working mother. Her application
should not have been rejected on technical grounds, especially when she
was forced into seeking Extraordinary Leave due to the respondents'
refusal to grant Child Care Leave as originally requested.
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

7
9. Referring to Annexure-A15 decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kakali Ghosh v. Chief Secretary, Andaman and Nicobar Administration and
others [(2014) 15 SCC 300] it is submitted that Child Care Leave is a
beneficial provision and its object is to ensure the welfare of the child and
enable the mother to take care of their minor child; the Hon'ble Supreme
Court emphasized that such welfare provisions must be interpreted
liberally and purposively and not in a narrow, technical or mechanical
manner.
10. Further it is submitted that denial of the Child Care Leave in
the present case directly affects the fundamental rights of the child
including the right to care, protection and healthy development, which are
integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. As a model employer, the
respondents are duty bound to act in a manner consistent with the
principles of the best interest of the child as recognised under the
constitutional jurisprudence and international obligations including the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which India is a
signatory. Compelling the applicant to perform demanding operational
duties without ensuring appropriate care giving arrangements for the
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

8
infant child defeats the very object of Child Care Leave and results in
indirect prejudice to the child, which is impermissible in law.
11. Similarly, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others [AIR
2022 SC 4108] it is submitted that the service jurisprudence relating to
maternity and child care must be interpreted in a manner that furthers the
object and purpose of the legislation, and that constitutional courts must
adopt an interpretation that advances substantive equality and enables
working women to balance professional responsibilities with care giving
obligations. The rigid approach taken by the respondents defeats the very
object sought to be achieved by the grant of Child Care Leave.
12. Similarly, referring to the decision in Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) [(2000) 3 SCC 224] and the later line
of decisions like Deepika Singh, quoted supra, it is submitted that the Apex
Court has recognised motherhood and care giving as integral facets of
dignity and equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
Denial or non-consideration of Child Care Leave in the present case directly
infringes upon these constitutional guarantees.
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

9
13. Further, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
various decisions indicate that the welfare measures extended to women
employees cannot be diluted or denied through executive rigidity or
procedural technicalities. Maternity and childcare-related benefits are not
concessions, but statutory and constitutional entitlements flowing from
the right to dignity and equality.
14. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to consider the
peculiar and compelling circumstances including the tender age of the
child, the absence of any alternate caregiver, the aged and ailing parents on
both sides, and the fact that both the applicant and her spouse are
employed in highly sensitive operational posts involving shift duties and
security-related responsibilities. The continued denial of appropriate leave
has resulted in severe physical, mental, and emotional hardship to the
applicant and has adversely affected the welfare of the minor child.
According to the applicant, Annexure-A18 is illegal, arbitrary and
unsustainable and it elevates administrative constraints and hypothetical
vacancy projections about the statutory object of the Rule. By denying her
Child Care Leave on speculative and broad statistical grounds without
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

10
th
examining her individual entitlement and compelling circumstances the 4
respondent had acted arbitrarily and in disregard to the legislative intent
underlying the provision. Thus the impugned order amounts to an
arbitrary exercise of power contrary to the object of Rule 551(E) and is
liable to be set aside.
15. According to the applicant, the statistics given in the
Annexure-A18 is not based on relevant considerations, but is a pretext to
deny the statutory benefit. She alleges malice against the Senior Divisional
th
Operations Manager, who is proposed to be included as 5 respondent in
his personal capacity. It is the result of a colourable exercise of power,
passed not for the purpose for which the authority is conferred, but to
penalise and victimise the applicant.
16. According to her, Annexure A-18 is vitiated by factual
misrepresentation and selective disclosure. The order relies solely on the
number of vacancies in the SM cadre to justify the denial of Child Care
Leave, without disclosing the sanctioned strength, the leave reserve
component, or the effective working strength of the cadre. By projecting
th
vacancy figures in isolation, the 4 Respondent creates an impression of
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

11
administrative impossibility, whereas Master Circular No. 41 makes it clear
that sanctioned strength in non-gazetted categories includes a leave
reserve provision precisely to absorb absence on leave. The impugned
order does not advert to this structural framework at all. Vacancy in itself is
not determinative of operational incapacity. What is relevant is whether
the cadre, inclusive of leave reserve, is unable to sustain the temporary
absence of one employee. Annexure A-18 is completely silent on this
aspect and therefore factually misleading, incomplete and intended to
justify a predetermined conclusion, rendering the order arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.
17. In the O.A, there are only four respondents. Thereafter, the
applicant filed MA/257/2026 seeking to implead the Senior Divisional
th
Operations Manager, the 4 respondent in his personal capacity as the
th
additional 5 respondent. Even though notice was issued in the MA to the
proposed respondent, ultimately that application has not been allowed.
That means, still, there are only four respondents in the O.A. In the
amended O.A., the said proposed respondent also has been impleaded as
th
the additional 5 respondent, which is not in conformity with the order of
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

12
the Tribunal. Therefore, he shall not be shown in the cause title.
th
18. To the amended O.A., the 4 respondent filed reply on behalf
of all the respondents challenging the very maintainability of the O.A.
According to him, the General Manager is not a necessary party to the
proceedings and has been unnecessarily impleaded as the respondent. It is
submitted that applicant had joined as Station Master on 09.01.2023 and
after completion of training was posted as Station Master at Kozhikode
under the control of the Traffic Inspector, Calicut. Being a lady, special
consideration was given to her at the time of initial appointment by giving
a posting at her home town, Kozhikode. She had joined Calicut station on
07.06.2023. She gave birth to a baby girl on 24.02.2025 and availed
maternity leave from 21.01.2025 to 19.07.2025 and rejoined duty on
20.07.2025.
19. The leave application dated 01.12.2025 from the applicant was
received at their office on 01.12.2025, by post. As per Railway Board
Circular dated 27-07-2023 (RBE No. 94/2023), after the launch of the leave
module of HRMS, all leave applications shall be processed only through
leave module and manual processing of leave shall be discontinued. In view
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

13
of above, the manual leave application submitted by the applicant could
not be processed as it is against the said circular.
20. As directed by this Tribunal, the request of the applicant for 18
months Child Care Leave was considered and Annexure-R(B)/A18 order was
passed on 27.12.2025 rejecting the same.
21. The respondents have gone through the personal details of her
husband's job tension and health condition of both the parents mentioned
though the veracity is not ascertained. But it is submitted that assuming it
to be true, this is not a unique or solitary case in a working environment. A
special privilege cannot be given to a single person which will result in a
discriminatory treatment of many others.
22. According to the respondents, from Annexures-A1 to A6 it is
clear that leave was sanctioned on several times from 23.08.2025 to
21.11.2025. Leave was sanctioned from 23.08.2025 to 21.09.2025 as can
be seen from Annexure-A4. Before the completion of every cycle of leave,
the applicant has made application for Child Care Leave and despite the
pressing demands of the requirement of staff, the respondents have made
every effort to grant her leave from 21.01.2025 till 21.10.2025, for a
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

14
continuous period of 9 months including the maternity leave and three
spells of Child Care Leave. The applicant had submitted application for
Leave Without Pay from 22.10.2025 to 07.01.2026, which could not be
sanctioned on account of administrative exigencies and she is well aware of
the same and how the other lady staff at her work place is struggling and
juggling to attain a work-life balance. The applicant was not sent for any
training, as stated by her. Station Masters under TI control are required to
work in the stations under his jurisdiction, as relieving duty Station Master
vice vacancy/leave at stations. (Jurisdiction of TI/CLT is from Feroke station
to Thikkoti station for a length of 44 kms). On resuming duty, the applicant
was directed to work at Feroke station which is at a distance of only 10 Kms
from Kozhikode. Station Masters directed to work at new stations are
permitted two or three days to familiarise with the train working at such
stations before taking independent duty, which is considered as training.
The applicant was available at Feroke station for nine days but was there
for three days, availed casual leave for 5 days and took independent duty
only one day, i.e., on 31.10.2025.
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

15
23. The applicant had taken casual leave on 23.10.2025,
24.10.2025, 26.10.2025, 29.10.2025 and 30.10.2025. She has highlighted
personal difficulty in making alternate arrangements in taking care of her
child as the sole factor which is not an isolated case in the department and
prefers to close eyes on her other professional responsibilities and
commitments. It is a universal truth and fact that every working mother is
striving to maintain a work life balance but public service exigencies must
prevail over private ones.
24. Further, referring to Rule 551(E)(I) it is submitted that granting
of Child Care Leave is only directory and it is the discretion of the leave
sanctioning authority; as the employee does not have an unfettered right, a
discretionary power is conferred on the sanctioning authority, either to
sanction or refuse the leave. Moreover, Rule 503 of the Code states that,
'leave cannot be claimed as of right and leave of any kind may be refused
or revoked by the authority competent to grant it'.
25. The respondents had been extremely considerate and lenient
in sanctioning leave throughout. That is evident from the narration of facts
made by the applicant. But she continuously applied for leave. Regarding
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

16
the rejection of Extraordinary Leave, the division was not in a position to
grant further leave for the employee due to the acute shortage of staff and
hence the application had to be rejected on account of administrative
exigency. Public interest and administrative exigencies cannot be
overlooked beyond a point and there should not be any room for
allegations of discriminatory treatment of granting privileges to the
employee. Public interest cannot be lost sight off. Hence the situation
pointed out by the applicant is not correct.
26. Further it is submitted that Child Care Leave cannot be granted
for more than three spells in a calendar year except in extraordinary
circumstances. More than three spells can be granted in a year only if child
is admitted in hospital. Here there is no such case. That was why after an
interview with the Senior Divisional Operating Manager, Palakkkad, at the
time of sanctioning the third spell of Child Care Leave from 16.09.2025, the
appellant was advised to make necessary alternate arrangements for child
care as is done by the other staff.
27. But the applicant tried to exert political influence for taking
undue advantage, that was why Annexure-A10 was issued on getting a
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

17
representation from her husband, Sarang T.R., Assistant Manager, (ATC),
Calicut International Airport to the Hon'ble Minister of State for Railways.
Various informal political representations were also received at the office
to consider extension of leave. Even though the acts were of grave nature,
the department was still granting leave to the applicant taking a humane
and compassionate view contrary to the allegations raised by the applicant.
As the applicant pleaded ignorance about exerting political influence and as
the employee was continuing on leave, no further action was taken on
Annexure-A10.
28. As stated in Annexure-A18, after the issue of Annexure-R(A),
all leave applications shall be processed only through leave module of
HRMS and manual processing of leave shall be discontinued, as per the
provisions of IREM, CCL shall not be granted for more than three spells in a
calendar year and the applicant was already granted three spells in 2025.
Thirdly, administrative exigencies were not favouring the applicant. Hence
the allegations are baseless.
29. According to the respondents, there is no dispute that
beneficial legislations should be interpreted purposively. However, a
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

18
responsible authority cannot close its eyes while public interest and public
service are disrupted. The judgments in Kakali Ghosh and Deepika Singh
have no application on the facts of the case. The request for further CCL
shall be considered as per vacancy position and operational exigencies at
the time, which has been stated in Annexure-A18/R(B).
30. Respondents have reiterated the statistics given in Annexure-
A18 and submit that the CCL for 18 months was rejected in compelling
circumstances taking care of the absolute interest of the public sector
undertakings.
31. After carefully considering all the contentions raised by the
applicant like quantum of leave already sanctioned to the employee,
available staff strength/vacancy position of SMs in the division, existing rule
position regarding sanctioning of CCL etc., were considered while rejecting
the leave application, there was no ground for personal malice or
vindictiveness in this case. They have also tabulated various leaves
including maternity leave, Child Care Leave and Leave Without Pay etc.
applied for by the applicant in her entire service. Respondents have also
made a comparative statement of maternity leave and Child Care Leave
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

19
granted to other categories of employees like Station Masters, SHM,
th
Pointman during 2025-2026 and submits that the 4 respondent was
exercising administrative prudence ensuring proper functioning of the
system. It is his duty to treat all employees equally and special treatment
cannot be meted out to any employee. The allegations of personal
animosities, strategic fabrication aimed at characterising the Divisional
Manager as a biased party in all future administrative actions including
sanction of leaves, transfers, postings etc. The allegations against the
officer, Sri.Balamurali, who was the then Senior Divisional Operating
Manager, were unwarranted and is only a scheming and manipulating
pressure tactic vilely employed by the applicant. Annexure A-20 is not
based on any personal animosity or malice or vindictiveness. The same has
been issued in response to an unlawful interference in the functioning of
th
the department. No malafides is involved on the side of the 5
respondent. At the same time, the applicant is acting in a malicious
th
manner trying to implicate the 5 respondent, who is only diligently doing
his duties in his official capacity to get things done in her way by an act of
threatening to get him entangled in Court proceedings in his personal
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

20
capacity. There has never been any colourable exercise of power. Thus the
respondents have prayed for dismissing the O.A.
32. The applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating that the General
Manager is the statutory head of the Railway administration and is a
necessary party.
33. Further, it is submitted that the applicant does not claim any
special privilege but wants consideration of a statutory welfare benefit on
the basis of her own compelling circumstances. The assertion that other
working mothers also face similar difficulties is no answer in law to her
individual claim. Equality does not mean that a genuine claim can be
rejected merely because others may also become eligible to make similar
claims. There is no unfettered discretion on the part of the respondents in
rejecting the claim. The application had to be considered on the basis of
objective and individual assessment. That should not have been brushed
as a 'universal phenomenon'.
34. Further it is submitted that even assuming that she should not
have been granted leave for more than three spells in a calendar year, the
application is for 18 months CCL from 09.01.2026 and the 'three spells rule'
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

21
does not stand on the way of considering the application.
35. Further it is submitted that even though exaggerated figures
have been repeatedly stated the sanctioned strength of Station Masters
have been purposely avoided. It is necessary that the leave reserve must
be 25% and the rest-giver reserve is 20%. Apart from the regular working
strength, there would ordinarily be one rest-giver/rest reserve for every
five Station Masters and one leave reserve for every four Station Masters.
The vacancies now relied upon by the respondents are, in substantial
measure, vacancies of their own creation or, at the least, vacancies which
were capable of being anticipated well in advance. Such vacancies do not
arise suddenly or unpredictably when they are caused by normal attrition,
including retirement, promotion or transfer of personnel. The Railway
administration has an established machinery for assessment of vacancies
and regular recruitment. It was therefore incumbent upon the respondents
to anticipate such vacancies and initiate recruitment or other appropriate
staffing measures in time. Administrative inaction or delay in maintaining
the sanctioned working strength cannot, by itself, be converted into a
ground to impose disproportionate hardship upon serving employees and
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

22
their families, particularly where a statutory welfare provision intended for
the care of a minor child is involved.
36. According to the applicant, the respondents cannot defeat the
welfare object of the Rule by relying upon the generalized staff shortage
which was foreseeable and the administration itself was required to be
addressed. The interests and care of the child are material considerations
which cannot be rendered illusory by administrative inactions. Therefore,
the applicant has submitted that Annexure-A18 cannot stand and the O.A.
is only to be allowed.
37. Heard Smt.Kala T Gopi, learned counsel for the applicant and
Smt.Sanjana R Nair, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
38. The respective arguments were reiterated by the learned
counsel on both sides.
39. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on
various authorities as given below:-
1. Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WPS
No.5386/2026 (Smt.Manda Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh and
others)
2. Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
No.764/2023 (Shri.Valencio D'Souza v. The Director, Institute of
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

23
Psychiatry and Human Behaviour)
3. Judgment of the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.15193/2021
and CM Appeal No. 47854/2021 (Ritu Ravi Prakash v. Union of
India)
4. Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition
No.11915/2024 (NIMHANS v. Smt.S.Anitha Joseph)
5. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.5308/2022 (Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative
Tribunal and others)
6. Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WPS
No.6831/2024 (Lata Goyal v. Union of India and another)
7. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hamsaanandini
Nanduri v. Union of India [2026 KHC 6182]
8. Judgment of the Kerala High Court in Mini K.T. v. Senior
Divisional Manager, LIC, Kozhikode and others [2018 KHC 20]
9. Judgment of the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.10215/2019
(Smt.Rajesh Rathi v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others)
10. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shalini Dharmani
v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2024 KHC 8188]
40. The learned counsel for the applicant, explaining the positions
reiterated by the various High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court and
narrating the family background of the applicant submitted that
administrative exigencies cannot be raised as a ground to refuse the Child
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

24
Care Leave applied for by the applicant. According to the learned counsel,
there is no purpose in stating some figures without even stating the
sanctioned strength of Station Masters and also without referring to the
necessary leave reserve as provided in the Master Circular. She submitted
that the Child Care Leave has been introduced as a beneficial legislation.
There is an object behind it. It cannot be rejected showing superficial
reasonings. According to her, the respondents have failed to prove the
administrative exigencies. The leave applied for by her has been rejected
without proper consideration vis a vis object of the legislation.
Administrative exigencies can never be raised as a ground for rejecting a
benefit sought under the beneficial legislation.
41. According to the learned counsel, such Acts like Maternity
Benefit Act, Child Care Leave Act etc. have been introduced with the
purpose of bringing up or advancing the interests of women; motherhood
is not a private affair. The right of the woman has been upheld in various
authorities cited at Bar. The fact that her husband had tried to contact the
Minister cannot be a ground for rejecting a benefit under the statute.
According to the learned counsel, now, when the O.A. is pending, which
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

25
challenges the correctness of Annexure-A18, the respondents have
initiated disciplinary proceedings for unauthorised absence, which is also
illegal.
42. Reiterating the family circumstances and the fact that the
husband is also working in equally important sensitive post, the
respondents cannot term her absence as 'unauthorised absence'. She has
already applied for Child Care Leave and other leaves. She has no other go
but to take care of the child during her formative stages. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel, the respondents have gone wrong in
rejecting the prayer for Child Care Leave applied through Annexure-A14.
43. On the other hand, according to Smt.Sanjana, the respondents
are manning the biggest public sector undertaking, which is a public utility
service. The applicant cannot say that any discrimination was shown to her
despite the fact that she tried to exert political pressure on the
respondents. Annexure-A18 is a well reasoned order, which cannot be
called in question. Referring to clause 503 of the Indian Railway
Establishment Manual it is submitted that leave, even if it is Child Care
Leave, is not a right. The respondents have to take care of the public
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

26
administration at large, which is more important than the personal
difficulties of the applicant. She also placed reliance on various circulars on
Child Care Leave like RBE 195/2008 and DoPT OM No.1308/212008-Estt(L)
dated 18.11.2008, the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ
Petition No.3073/2025 (Suman Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan and others),
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v.
Dr.Sanjay Kumar Bansai [(2009) 15 SCC 168] etc. Similarly, based on a
circular issued by the District Judge, Delhi and the DoPT OM dated
18.11.2008, it is submitted that Child Care Leave cannot be sought as a
matter of right and that the applicant has no special right.
44. She has also referred to the comparative statement
incorporated in the reply and said that no discrimination has been shown
to the applicant. The personal difficulties raised by the applicant are
common to all working women, especially when both the spouses are
employed. So, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the applicant is
not entitled to succeed.
45. From the averments of the parties and the arguments of the
learned counsel on both sides, it is very clear that both the parties are
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

27
taking extremely exclusive stands on the grant of Child Care Leave to the
applicant. While the learned counsel for the applicant has highlighted the
personal difficulties of the applicant in looking after the child when she is
unable to secure support from the parents on both sides, it is her bounden
duty to nurse and bring up the child especially when the child is only 1½
years old. It is her only one child. The learned counsel has also highlighted
the principles governing the subject that it is a beneficial legislation, that
the principle of motherhood and rights of children have to be upheld by
the Tribunal while deciding the dispute. On the other hand, the learned
Standing Counsel was highlighting the fact that the applicant is trying to
generalise the personal difficulties which is not special to her, but it is
general in all the house hold where both the spouses are employed.
46. After having given my anxious considerations to the
contentions on both sides, I have feeling that there is a via media for the
present controversy raised by both sides. An analysis of the service profile
of the applicant indicates that after she had rejoined duty on 20.07.2025
on the expiry of the maternity leave, the applicant has never worked on a
regular basis in the organisation. She is a Station Master, which is a
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

28
sensitive post falling within safety category. A few days after rejoining duty
after the expiry of the maternity leave she proceeded on Child Care Leave,
which is natural because at that time, she must be a lactating mother.
Thereafter, she availed intermittent leaves, either Child Care Leave or Leave
Without Allowance and had never been regular in the work place.
Meanwhile, it is evident that she had tried to exert political pressure on the
respondents in granting her leave, which is uncommon in service
jurisprudence. Even after the issue of Annexures-A10 and A20
communications it is seen that leave was granted to her till 27.12.2025.
47. Before considering the rival contentions, it is only appropriate
to reproduce Annexure-A18, which is impugned by the applicant:
“ Your request by post, dated 01.12.2025 for sanctioning of 18 months
Child Care Leave could not be considered due to the following reasons:
As per Railway Board Letter No. PC-VII/2023/HRMS/11 dated 27-07-2023
(RBE No. 94/2023), after the launch of leave module of HRMS, all leave
applications shall be processed only through leave module of HRMS and
manual processing of leave shall be discontinued.
Also, as per the provisions of IREM Vol (I), Child Care leave shall not be
granted for more than three spells in a calendar year. Relaxation in this
regard vide RB Letter No. E(P&A)I-2019/CPC/LE-2 dated 24-10-2024 is
applicable only in the cases where child is admitted in a hospital as
inpatient. No such emergency is cited in your request letter. You had
already availed 89 days CCL in three spells during the calendar year 2025
and hence further sanctioning of CCL is not possible in the year 2025.
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

29
In view of above, the manual leave application submitted by you on 01-
12-2025 cannot be processed and hence was not considered.
Regarding the request for LWP from 03-12-2025 to 09-01-2026
mentioned in the above letter, LWP was partially sanctioned from 03-12-
2025 to 27-12-2025, based on your application submitted through HRMS.
Further, it may be noted that at present there are 38 vacancies in SM
category out of which 22 vacancies are managed by SMs temporarily
transferred from MAS division. Three SMs are under Maternity leave, One
SM is long absent and two SMs are under long sick. Also two more SMs
are due for Maternity leave in January 2025. With the resultant vacancy
position of 24 SMs, managing the train passing duties at stations will be
difficult.
There are 69 lady SMs in Palakkad division and more than 90% of the
above employees are eligible for child care leave. Sanctioning of CCL for
long duration for all the eligible employees will adversely affect the
operations of division. Running of trains in an efficient and punctual
manner without compromising the safety of passengers is of paramount
importance. In view of above, in important Safety categories like Station
Masters,sanctioning of CCL can be done only after taking in to account of
the staff position at that time.
Every effort has been made by this office to give maximum help to you
during this period. 3 Months CCL was sanctioned to you as against the
normal practice of 2 Months CCL, as a special case. Further, considering
your request and considering your special circumstances, leave without
pay was sanctioned by this office from 01-11-2025 to 27-11-2025 and
again from 03-12-2025 to 27-12-2025.
During the interview with Sr.DOM/PGT at the time of sanctioning the
third spell of CCL from 16-09-2025, you were advised to make necessary
alternate arrangements for child care. The extension of 30 days CCL was
done on humanitarian grounds for the same purpose.
In view of the above reasons, sanctioning of 18 months CCL as requested
by you is not presently feasible. Request for further CCL shall be
considered as per the vacancy position and operational exigencies at the
time.”
48. This Tribunal appreciates the valid points raised by the learned
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

30
counsel for the applicant touching the a importance of motherhood, the
rights of the child etc. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, when
such a matter is raised, what is important is the rights of the child which is
a universally accepted principle on the basis of international conventions
which have been reflected in the various statutes and legislative
enactments. At the same time, we cannot say that Child Care Leave is a
right. Leave is not a right. It has to be granted by the competent authority.
Therefore, the applicant has no vested right even though it is the product
of a beneficial legislation and it involves the advancement of the rights of
th
the child and motherhood. At the same time, the 4 respondent, who is
manning a big organisation like the Railways who has to give importance to
the interest of the Railways which is a public sector and public utility
service cannot also be sidelined by the applicant.
49. The Tribunal understands the personal difficulties faced by the
applicant in rearing the child in its formative stage. But it is not something
novel in a new family set up where the families are small, in contrast to the
joint family system which was in vogue in our society. In the earlier days,
when joint family was available, rearing children or bringing them up was
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

31
never a problem, because it was the duty of the elder women and elders in
the family to take care of them. It was never a burden for the parents. At
that time both the parents may not be working also. But now joint families
have disappeared and in small families, it is the burden of the parents to
take care of the children without getting any support and assistance from
elders or parents. Here, the applicant is not getting any support from the
parents. Her own parents are elderly and have their own difficulties in
assisting her. Similarly, the parents of the spouse also have their own
handicaps, the father-in-law is completely visually impaired and are unable
to extend any support to the family. Her husband is also employed in an
equally important place under the Airport Authority. Now, it is submitted
that he is due for transfer and she does not know what would be the
position if he is transferred to a distant place.
50. Anyhow, it is high time the applicant thinks seriously about
finding out alternative ways for rearing the child without choosing to avail
leave, all the time. That is practically impossible also. At first she should
bear in mind that CCL cannot be sanctioned every time by the mere
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

32
asking, without looking around. She has her own responsibilities as a
Station Master and that she also will have to be chosen for shift duties
even during odd hours. That is not uncommon in the service obligations of
the applicant. Therefore, the applicant cannot avail leave for long and
claim Child Care Leave as a matter of right. Here, fortunately the child does
not have any other difficulty and there is substance in the contention of the
respondents that she cannot be granted more than three spells of leave in
a calendar year. Earlier, she had applied for further spells of Child Care
Leave in 2025 itself when, on her own showing, she had availed three spells
of Child Care Leave in the year.
51. Now, she has sought for Child Care Leave for 18 months at a
stretch from 09.01.2026 which has been rejected, showing reasons.
Highlighting statistics, it is submitted that they find it difficult to grant her
leave for such a long spell of time. It is also important that even when the
leave was rejected, from the rider in Annexure-A18 it is certain that though
such a request is not feasible for the present, request for further Child Care
Leave shall be considered as per the vacancy position and operational
exigencies at the time. The respondents cannot be heard to say that
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

33
whenever such applications for leave is submitted by the applicant or
similarly placed employees, it shall be granted as a matter of right. Such a
proposition cannot be accepted in any circumstance.
52. Now, nearly 10 months have elapsed after the applicant has
left the station, where proceedings have been initiated against her for
unauthorised absence. At the same time, I do not want to make any
comment for the present, as to how such a proceedings could be initiated
when this Tribunal has taken seisin of the matter. Whatever it may be, as
hinted earlier, the applicant herself should find out alternative ways and
means to rear the child and to bring her up in a most healthy manner. Now
it is not necessary for the Tribunal to say as to how such ways and means
can be found out. In our society, bringing up children in such circumstances
is not very difficult. It is only common that both the parents are in service
sector and means are available for bringing up such children on the close
supervision of the parents themselves. Without resorting to the same,
the applicant cannot rest lamenting that she has no support from
the parents, that she will have to sit with the baby all throughout, cannot
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

34
be accepted.
53. Kozhikode is a developed city with all modern facilities
available. There are similarly placed mothers resuming work, immediately
after the expiry of the maternity leave, leaving the new born with
caregivers/care taking institutions. Such institutions are functioning to the
utmost satisfaction of the parents on the close monitoring of the Social
Welfare Development of the State. Only thing is that the applicant should
come out of the adamant posture and should view things beyond her nose.
She is expected to maintain a work-life balance. The Tribunal cannot look
at one side of the shield. In fact, the applicant also could not establish that
th
any discrimination was shown to her or that the 4 respondent had worked
in a biased manner while issuing the impugned order.
54. On the other hand, the Tribunal also finds substance in the
argument that the supporting statistics stated in the impugned document
are without resort to the sanctioned strength of the Station Masters
available in the sector. Similarly, the leave reserve/rest reserve
components have also not been considered. Anyhow, it is for the
respondents to take care of such situation. Annexure-A18 was passed on
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

35
27.12.2025, now nearly more than 10 months have passed. The facts and
figures stated therein were valid as on the date of issue of the order. Such
facts and figures are not static, but are bound to change from time to time.
Thereafter, fresh recruitments must have taken place to the category.
Therefore, orders should have been passed leaving a window for making a
review after a reasonable period, say six months. Such an attitude might
give the employee an insight and hope to resume work.
55. It is time for both sides to make review of the respective
th
stands. In that view of the matter, I quash Annexure-A18 and direct the 4
respondent to make a review of the situation based on the facts and figures
available on 01.12.2026. Till that time, the application for leave submitted
by the applicant for Child Care Leave shall be considered. It is also time for
the applicant to consider alternative care giving arrangements for rearing
the baby which is not uncommon in the present day circumstances.
56. Resultantly, the Original Application is disposed of quashing
th
Annexure-A18 and directing the 4 respondent to issue fresh orders in the
light of the observations made above, having regard to the facts and figures
th
available as on 01.12.2026. Meanwhile, the 4 respondent also
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

36
shall consider the request of the applicant to regularise the period of
absence from duty from 27.12.2025.
The Original Application is disposed of. No costs.
th
(Dated, this the 28 day of October, 2026)
JUSTICE K. HARIPAL
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

37
List of Annexures
Annexure A1: -A true copy of the leave application for child care leave for a
period from 25-07-2025 - 24-8-2025 submitted by the applicant (not fully
legible)
Annexure A2: A true copy of the leave details downloaded from the
website, having a leave ID no 131616373, sanctioning leave from 25-7-2025
- 22-8-2025.
Annexure A3: - A true copy of the leave application for child care leave for a
period from 23-08-2025 - 21-11-2025 submitted by the applicant (not fully
legible)
Annexure A4: A true copy of the leave details downloaded from the
website, having a leave ID no. 132497541, sanctioning leave from 23-08-
2025 - 21-11-2025.
Annexure A5: - A true copy of the leave application for child care leave for a
period from 22-09-2025 - 21-10-2025, submitted by the applicant on 16-09-
2025.
Annexure A6: A true copy of the leave details downloaded from the
website, having a leave ID no. 134225682, sanctioning leave from 22-09-
2025 - 21-10-2025
Annexure A7: A true copy of the representation dated 18.10.2025 before
the Senior Divisional Operations Manager.
Annexure A8: A true copy of the leave details downloaded from the
website dated 29-10-2025 bearing leave ID no. 135893871, rejecting the
applicant's leave for the period from 22-10-2025 – 07-01-2026.
Annexure A9: A true copy of Rule 551 of the Indian Railway Establishment
Code, Volume I.
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

38
Annexure A10: A true copy of the order bearing No. J/T 20/SM/CLT/Leave/1
th
dated 21.11.2025 issued by the 4 respondent.
Annexure A11: true copy of the details downloaded from the website
bearing no leave ID 136448910, sanctioning leave from 01.11.2025 - 07-11-
2025 on 30.10.2025.
Annexure A12: A true copy of the details downloaded from the website
bearing leave ID 136638820, sanctioning leave from 08.11.2025 to 27-11-
2025 dated on 05-11-2025.
Annexure A13: A true copy of the representation dated nil seeking leave
28.11.2025 to 09.01.2026 by the applicant.
Annexure A14: A true copy of the representation dated 01.12.25 submitted
th
by the applicant to the 4 respondent.
Annexure A15: A true copy of the judgment dated 15.04.2014 in Civil
Appeal No.4506 of 2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Annexure A16: A true copy of the leave details bearing leave ID No.
138548777 sought leave for 28.11.2025 to 09-01-2025.
Annexure-A17 series: True copy of the relevant details of rejections in the
applicant's leave application as downloaded from the official Website.
Annexure-A18: A true copy of the Order bearing No. J/T20/P OA607/2025
dated 27.12.2025, rejecting the applicant's Annexure-A14 representation
th
by the 4 respondent.
Annexure-A19: A true copy of the Master circular 41, which deals with
consolidated instructions with respect to the Leave reserve provision in
non-gazette.
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

39
Annexure-A20: A true copy of the letter bearing No.J/T20/SM/CLT/Leave 2
th th
dated 21.11.2025 by the 4 respondent/5 respondent.
Annexure-A21: A true copy of the standing Disability Assessment Board
Certificate issued by the government District Hospital, Vadakara dated
29.11.2016.
Annexure-A22: A true copy of the Unique Disability ID issued by the
Government of India dated 13.02.2020.
Annexure-A23: A true copy of the Identity Card No.011539 issued by the
office of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway,
Palakkad.
Annexure-A24: A true copy of the Annual Transfer Circular ATM
Directorate-2026, circular bearing No.AAI/CHQ/ATM/HRD/29-23/2026
dated 16.01.2026.
Annexure R1(A)- True copy of the communication no. PC-
VII/2023/HRMS/11 dt. 27.07.2023
Annexure R1(B)- True copy of the communication dt. 27.12.2025,
No.J/T20/POA 607/2025
Annexure R1(C)- True copy of the letter dt. 24.10.2024, No.E(P&A)/1-
2019/CPC/LE-2
Annexure R1(D)- True copy of the communication dt. 05.01.2026
Annexure R(A)- True copy of the communication no. PC-VII/2023/HRMS/11
dt. 27.07.2023
Annexure R(B)- True copy of the communication dt. 27.12.2025
Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'

40
Annexure R(C)- True copy of the letter dt.24.10.2024
Annexure-A25: A true copy of charge memorandum bearing No.
th
J/T.227/26/ CLT/RK/5 dated 02.07.2026 issued by the 4 respondent.
Annexure-A26: A true copy of the representation dated 14.07.2026
submitted by the applicant.
Annexure-A27: A true copy of the order bearing No. J/T.227/26/CLT/RK/5
dated 31.07.2026.
Annexure-A28: A true copy of the order bearing No. J/T DAR ENQUIRY/RK/1
dated 12.08.2026.

Deepa S 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30'