Employees of Recognized Private Unaided Schools are Entitled to Child Care Leave at Par with Government Schools

The Appellant, a teacher at Bharti Public School (a recognized, unaided private school), filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 11903/2025) seeking Child Care Leave (CCL) from 01.05.2025 to 30.09.2025 to support her son during his Class XII academic pressure.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 08.08.2025, relying on Beena Arora v. Directorate of Education, which held that teachers in private unaided schools are not entitled to CCL.

The Appellant challenged this dismissal via an intra-court appeal, arguing that statutory provisions mandate parity in benefits between private and government school employees.

Whether a teacher working in a recognized but un-aided and privately managed school is entitled to the benefit of Child Care Leave (CCL) at par with teachers in government schools

Section 10(1) of the Delhi School Education (DSE) Act, 1973, which mandates that the "other prescribed benefits" of employees in recognized private schools shall not be less than those of employees in government schools.

Section 2(q) of the DSE Act, defining "prescribed" as prescribed by rules.

Rule 111 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, which explicitly entitles private school employees to the same leave of absence admissible to government employees.

Rule 43(C) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which grants CCL to female government servants.

Amandeep Kaur v. Union of India, which characterized CCL as a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court reasoned that the term "prescribed benefits" in Section 10(1) of the DSE Act must be read in conjunction with Rule 111 of the 1973 Rules.

It distinguished the present case from the precedent in M.I. Hussain v. Director of Education, clarifying that while M.I. Hussain limited benefits to those having a "character of money" (applying ejusdem generis), it overlooked the specific definition of "prescribed" under Section 2(q) and the explicit mandate of Rule 111 regarding leave of absence.

The Bench noted that Rule 111 does not distinguish between leave that can be encashed (money character) and leave that cannot (such as CCL or Maternity Leave).

Consequently, since CCL is a benefit available to government teachers under the CCS (Leave) Rules, it constitutes a "prescribed benefit" that cannot be denied to private school teachers under the statutory framework of the DSE Act.

The appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge's order dated 08.08.2025 was set aside; the Court directed the Respondent-School to consider the Appellant’s prayer for CCL afresh and decide the matter with expedition.