Child Care Leave Applied by Women Employee Needs To Be Considered With Sympathetic View: CAT Chandigarh

Further, the bench held that such kind of pleas taken by the authorities for rejecting the CCL to women employees have been negatived a number of times by the Courts.

Brief Facts:

Applicant, a Nursing Officer at PGIMER, Chandigarh, gave birth to twins with one of them having low birth weight. The Applicant took maternity leave, which expired on 26.12.2019. Seeking additional time due to her babies' needs and her own physical recovery, she requested Child Care Leave (CCL) from 27.12.2019 to 26.12.2020. Despite her representation and a subsequent tribunal directive to reconsider, the management rejected her CCL request. Subsequently, the management issued a charge sheet alleging her absence from duties. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh (“Tribunal”) and filed an original application.

The Applicant contended that the rejection of her CCL lacked justification and was non-speaking. She argued that denying CCL contradicted the spirit of the Maternity Benefit Act. The management, however, argued that CCL cannot be claimed as a right and must be approved by the relevant authority.

Observations by the Tribunal:

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant previously approached the Tribunal twice regarding the matter. In the earlier application, the management was directed to reconsider the Applicant's request, leading to the subsequent rejection of the claim. The Applicant contested this decision, alleging it to be illegal, arbitrary, and harsh.

The Tribunal referred to Dr. Kanchan Bala Vs. State of Haryana and Others where the plea of staff shortage to deny CCL was dismissed, directing the employment of a Medical Specialist on a contract basis to mitigate public inconvenience.

Considering the constitutional entitlement of women to participate in the workforce, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shalini Dharmani Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. The SC held that the provision of CCL is vital for preventing the deprivation of women's participation in the workforce, especially in cases involving children with special needs. It emphasized that state policies must align with constitutional protections and safeguards to ensure consistency and fairness.

The Tribunal noted that it was an undisputed fact that the Applicant gave birth to twins on July 2, 2019, and subsequently applied for CCL after her maternity leave expired. Regrettably, her request was denied stating that there was a staff shortage. The medical records indicated that one of the babies was born underweight and faced respiratory issues. The Tribunal noted that motherhood is universally acknowledged as a pivotal role for women which necessitates adequate time and care for the newborn. In the instance of twins, it was evident that the standard maternity leave would fall short which warranted further leave. The Tribunal held that the request for CCL in such circumstances ought to be met with compassion, considering the practical needs of women employees to attend to their children's welfare, be it for health concerns or other exigencies like examinations.

It noted that the necessity of CCL for female employees stems from the recognition that they require time to nurture and cater to their children's needs. Any shortfall in staffing due to an employee's leave can be addressed through temporary recruitment arrangements. It held that the courts consistently rejected pleas by authorities to deny CCL to women employees, recognizing that while leave entitlements are not absolute rights and can be adjusted based on administrative necessities, the circumstances of individual employees, especially new mothers, must be considered empathetically.

Therefore, the orders passed by the management were held to be illegal and quashed. The management was instructed to grant the CCL as applied for by the Applicant.

Case Title: Nidhi Sinha vs Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research and Anr

Case Number: Original Application No.060/00766/2020

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. K.B. Sharma

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC

Click Here To Read/Download Order