Tribunal directs authorities to consider and decide child care leave application in two weeks.

The applicant, Nazira Shaban, was appointed as a Staff Nurse in the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) via Government Order No. 18-SKIMS of 2015 dated May 29, 2015, and has served for over eleven years.

She has a 19-month-old child who requires constant maternal care, and the child's age is below that prescribed for Child Care Leave according to applicable rules.

The applicant's husband works as a Doctor at G. S. Medical College, Uttar Pradesh, leaving her to manage child care and professional duties alone.

The applicant submitted an application dated January 31, 2026, seeking Earned Leave for one month, effective February 23, 2026.

Despite assurances from the administration and making necessary arrangements, she was informed telephonically that her leave request was deferred until March 2026, without any written order or stated reasons.

Subsequently, the applicant submitted a representation dated February 19, 2026, to the respondents seeking redressal, but no action has been taken by the respondents to date.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant's case for the sanction of Earned Leave followed by Child Care Leave for six months, strictly in accordance with the applicable Leave Rules.

The court implicitly referred to the "applicable Leave Rules" governing the sanction of Earned Leave and Child Care Leave for government employees, requiring the respondents to follow these rules in considering the applicant's request.

The general principle of administrative law mandating a reasoned decision on representations by competent authorities was also applied.

The court found that the applicant, a Staff Nurse with 11 years of service, sought Earned Leave and Child Care Leave due to her 19-month-old child requiring maternal care and her husband working out of state.

Her initial leave request was deferred without written communication or reasons, and her subsequent representation received no response.

Given these circumstances, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, the court deemed it appropriate to direct the competent authority to decide the applicant's case, treating the O.A. as a representation alongside her prior submission, in adherence to relevant rules and law.

This approach ensures that the administrative process is followed and a formal decision is rendered.

The court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.