CAT Quashes Railway’s Rejection Of Working Mother’s 18-Month Child-Care Leave Bid, Orders Fresh Review

The applicant, a Station Master in Southern Railway, sought 18 months’ Child Care Leave (CCL), relying on the care needs of her infant and the absence of family support.

After maternity leave, she had taken several spells of CCL and other leave.

Her application dated 1 December 2025 was rejected by order dated 27 December 2025, citing the requirement to apply through HRMS, the limit on CCL spells in a calendar year, staff shortages, and operational requirements.

She challenged the rejection before the Tribunal.

The respondents maintained that leave was discretionary and that granting a long spell would prejudice railway operations.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had later been proceeded against for unauthorised absence.

Rule 551(E) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, governs CCL; the Tribunal treated CCL as a welfare-oriented benefit but held that it is not an automatic or vested right.

Rule 503 of the Code provides that leave cannot be claimed as of right and may be refused or revoked by the competent authority.

The impugned order also relied on the Railway Board’s HRMS circular dated 27 July 2023, requiring leave applications to be processed through the HRMS leave module, and on the rule limiting CCL to three spells in a calendar year, subject to the stated exception where a child is admitted to hospital as an inpatient.

The Tribunal recognised the relevance of the child-welfare and motherhood principles discussed in Kakali Ghosh v. Chief Secretary, Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, while maintaining that those principles did not make leave an unconditional entitlement.

The Tribunal balanced the applicant’s childcare circumstances and the welfare purpose of CCL against the Railway’s public-service and safety obligations.

It accepted that leave is discretionary and that the applicant could not demand a prolonged spell as of right, particularly given her prior leave and the operational nature of her post.

However, it also found substance in the objection that the staffing figures relied on in the impugned order did not address the sanctioned strength or leave- and rest-reserve components, and noted that the figures were time-sensitive.

Because the decision did not adequately account for these matters and was based on staffing circumstances that could have changed, the Tribunal considered a fresh review appropriate rather than directing that the requested 18 months’ leave be granted outright.

It further directed the respondent to consider regularising the applicant’s absence from duty from 27 December 2025.

The Original Application was disposed of without costs.