After Granting 4 Months’ Child-Care Leave, P&H HC Upholds Refusal Of More Leave To Mother Absent Without Sanction

Mini Nanda, an Assistant Research Officer posted as the sole Assistant District Statistical Officer in Kurukshetra, sought child care leave (CCL) after her maternity leave.

The department initially sanctioned CCL for one month and later extended it by three months, until 4 September 2023.

After that leave expired, she applied for further CCL but did not resume work while awaiting a decision.

The department rejected her further request on 6 October 2023, citing staff shortage.

Her writ petition challenging that decision was dismissed.

During the writ proceedings, the department had offered CCL on the condition that she work one day each week; although her counsel initially agreed, she subsequently sought CCL without that condition.

She appealed the dismissal.

Rule 46 of the Haryana Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2016 governs CCL.

Under Rule 46(1), CCL may be granted for up to 730 days during service to care for the employee’s two eldest surviving children below 18 years.

Rule 46(2) provides that CCL cannot be claimed as a matter of right and requires prior sanction by the competent authority; Rule 46(9) bars retrospective conversion of unauthorised absence into CCL; and Rule 46(11) requires the sanctioning authority to consider both the purpose of CCL and the need to avoid disruption to office functioning.

The Court also referred to Article 51A(j) of the Constitution concerning the duty to strive towards excellence.

The appellant relied on Kakali Ghosh v. Chief Secretary, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, (2014) 15 SCC 300, concerning arbitrary rejection of CCL; the Court’s decision turned on Rule 46 and the facts of the case.

The Court held that the appellant’s sanctioned CCL ended on 4 September 2023, requiring her to resume duty thereafter.

Because no further leave had been sanctioned, her absence from 5 September was unauthorised and could not be regularised as CCL retrospectively, given Rule 46(9).

The Court acknowledged that staff shortage should not indefinitely defeat the purpose of CCL, but found no such result here: the department had granted four months of CCL in total, the appellant was the only ADSO at Kurukshetra, and her duties were connected to budget preparation and data compilation.

It concluded that the Rules required balancing the employee’s childcare needs against the operational needs of public service.

It held that she had no right to proceed on CCL without prior sanction and that her unauthorised absence could not be converted retrospectively into CCL.

Finding no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge’s decision, it dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.