Child Care Leave is restricted to the two eldest children; twins count as separate surviving children.

The applicant, an Associate Professor in the Higher Education Department of Jammu and Kashmir, applied for Child Care Leave (CCL) on 19.03.2025 to assist her son with his Class XII academic commitments and national-level fencing tournaments

The applicant had previously given birth to twin daughters in April 2006, followed by a son in January 2009

On 20.03.2025, the Principal of Government Degree College, Udhampur (Respondent No. 2), rejected the application on the grounds that the son is the applicant's third child, whereas the rules restrict CCL to the two eldest surviving children

The applicant challenged this order, contending that the birth of twins should be treated as a single event/child for the purpose of CCL eligibility and that the leave is a beneficial social entitlement

1. Whether the birth of twin children constitutes "two children" for the purpose of the numerical limitation prescribed for Child Care Leave under Rule 41-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979?

2. Whether the statutory restriction of Child Care Leave to the "two eldest children" can be relaxed or interpreted liberally to include a third child based on personal hardship or the beneficial nature of the rule?

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 41-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979, which provides that a woman employee may be granted CCL for a maximum of 730 days during her service for the care of her "two eldest children"

It relied on the principle of statutory interpretation that when the language of a rule is plain and unambiguous, it must be followed strictly, and courts cannot engage in judicial legislation to create exceptions

The Tribunal further distinguished the Supreme Court precedents in Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Deepika Singh v. CAT & Ors., noting they did not strike down numerical ceilings for such benefits

The Tribunal found that the facts were undisputed: the applicant’s first delivery resulted in twin daughters (the two eldest children) and her second delivery resulted in a son (the third child)

The Tribunal reasoned that Rule 41-A explicitly refers to "children" and does not provide an exception for multiple births (twins) during a single delivery event

It held that treating twins as a single child would require rewriting the statute, which is beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction

Regarding the applicant’s reliance on beneficial interpretation, the Tribunal noted that while CCL is intended to support working mothers, such interpretation must remain within the express statutory framework

It also clarified that the grant of maternity leave for a third child does not create a vested right to CCL, as both are governed by distinct statutory conditions

The Tribunal concluded that sympathy or personal hardship cannot override statutory provisions

The Original Application was dismissed, and the prayer to quash the rejection order dated 20.03.2025 was denied

No order as to costs was made