Administrative authorities must decide statutory Child Care Leave applications through reasoned speaking orders.

The applicant, a Staff Nurse at the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) with over eleven years of unblemished service sought Child Care Leave (CCL) for six months to care for her 19-month-old child.

On January 31, 2026, she applied for Earned Leave followed by CCL, but the respondents failed to take a formal decision.

The applicant’s husband serves as a doctor outside the Union Territory, leaving her as the primary caregiver.

Previously, the applicant filed O.A. No. 154/2026, where the Tribunal directed the respondents on February 27, 2026, to decide the matter via a speaking order.

The applicant alleges that the respondents failed to comply, instead informally communicating a deferral of the leave via telephone on February 17, 2026.

Consequently, the applicant filed the instant O.A. seeking a direction for the grant of CCL in accordance with statutory rules.

1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to consider and pass a reasoned speaking order on the applicant's request for Child Care Leave under the applicable service rules.

2. Whether the continued inaction of the respondents in deciding the leave application violates the applicant’s statutory and constitutional rights.

Rule 41-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979 (as amended), which governs the eligibility and grant of Child Care Leave to government employees.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, noting the applicant’s claim that the right to live with dignity encompasses the proper care and upbringing of a minor child.

The Tribunal examined the applicant’s service record, noting her significant contributions during public health exigencies like the COVID-19 pandemic and her lack of any disciplinary history.

The court observed that the respondents had failed to issue a written or reasoned order despite a specific direction from the Tribunal in a previous proceeding (O.A. No. 154/2026).

The Tribunal highlighted that the applicant is prima facie eligible under Rule 41-A and that the respondents' "informal" telephonic deferral did not constitute a lawful administrative decision.

During the proceedings, the applicant’s counsel proposed that the petition be treated as a fresh representation to be decided within a stipulated timeframe, a proposition to which the respondents’ counsel raised no objection.

The respondents were ordered to take a decision in accordance with the law and relevant rules by passing a speaking order within four weeks from the date of the order.

The court further directed that the outcome of this decision must be conveyed to the applicant immediately upon the expiry of the four-week period.