Back
Mother's Care During Crisis: Bombay HC Slams Child Care Leave Denial as Policy Breach
In a poignant ruling that underscores the vital role of mothers in child-rearing, the has criticized government officials for flouting guidelines, effectively denying a child his mother's support during a critical academic phase amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Single-judge bench of Dr. Neela Gokhale, J. disposed of Writ Petition No. 764 of 2023 filed by Valencio D’Souza against the Director of the , Bambolim, noting the lapse but deeming the specific relief due to time lapse.
Desperate Bid for Support in a Pandemic Year
The saga began in when Millie Do Rosario, an Assistant Accounts Officer at IPHB, sought 266 days of CCL from , to . Her son, Warren D’Souza, a Class 12 science student described as academically weak, needed constant supervision for his board exams—exacerbated by COVID-19 lockdowns.
The Director forwarded the request to the , which hinted at arranging a substitute. However, only 60 days were sanctioned from . Extensions were rejected citing " ," forcing Millie back to work. Aggrieved husband Valencio complained to the , which dismissed the plea on , and a review on —prompting the writ petition.
Petitioner's Cry for Justice vs Department's Defense
Petitioner's advocate argued the rejection brazenly violated Goa government's from , and . He stressed mandatory referral to the Minister (Personnel) for any denial, calling it a "casual" breach of the child's and mother's , warranting action under .
Opposing, Additional Government Advocate defended via an affidavit from IPHB Director Prof. Dr. J.P. Tiwari, asserting compliance with rules and no infirmity in the Human Rights Commission's orders.
Policy Ignored: Court Dissects the Guidelines
Dr. Gokhale meticulously parsed the 2013 circular, which mandates Heads of Departments to refer CCL rejections—with justification—to the Minister (Personnel) via the concerned Minister, disposing applications within 30 days otherwise. Action awaits non-compliant officials. The 2014 circular insists on a minimum six-month CCL (or balance available), modifiable only per procedure.
The court found clear non-adherence:
"The Officer concerned failed to adhere to the CCL policy relevant at that point in time."
Even if understaffed, the Director should have escalated with refusal recommendation. No precedents were cited, but the ruling invokes CCL's constitutional ethos, linking it to familial stability and Article-like protections for motherhood.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The legislation acknowledges the indispensable contribution of a woman in familial stability, her responsibility in nurturing and caring for a child, and the physical and emotional demands attached to motherhood."
"Considering the importance of the policy to grant CCL to women, not only is her right sought to be protected, but even the right of her child to her society and comfort is sought to be secured."
"Because of the non-adherence to the policy... the Petitioner’s child was deprived of the support of his mother."
"To that extent, there was a lapse on the part of the official concerned in adhering to the terms of the policy."
Relief, Enduring Directive
While the exams are long over—
"the purpose for which the leave was sought... no longer exists"
—the court disposed the petition with a firm caveat:
"Government Officials concerned must act in aid of the relevant and prevailing policies concerning CCL so as to secure the objects of such policies."
This sets a precedent for strict policy enforcement, potentially shielding working mothers and students in future pleas. No costs or further orders, but a wake-up call for Goa’s administration to prioritize CCL compliance.
