JUDGMENT :

(Krishna Rao, J.) :

1. Though vide order dt. 12.11.2018 directions were issued upon the respondents to file Affidavit-In-Opposition and accordingly 28.11.2018 affidavit is filed but since then no one is appearing on behalf of the respondents. On 15.02.2022 notice was also served upon the Counsel for the respondent by the Counsel for the petitioner but inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

2. The petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Goghat Bhagabati Balika Vidlaya (H.S). The son of the petitioner who was aged about 1 ½ years was suffering from Typhoid and the presence of the petitioner with her minor son was necessary to take care of the child, the petitioner could not attend the school from 12.07.2016 to 07.08.2016 and the petitioner has requested for Child Care Leave. The Headmistress of the School refused to grant Child Care Leave to the petitioner over phone and accordingly the petitioner had sent a written request to the school authorities for grant of Child Care Leave by enclosing medical prescription of the son of the petitioner.

3. The school authorities instead of granting Child Care Leave to the petitioner, the leave of the petitioner was treated as medical leave from 12.07.2016 to 07.08.2016.

4. On 08.08.2016 the petitioner reported her duty but the son was not fully recovered from illness, the petitioner again went on Child Care Leave from 09.08.2016 till her son recover from illness.

5. Vide letter dt. 31.08.2016 the Headmistress of the school informed the petitioner that considering the general interest of the students and also the applications given by the other lady teachers for CCL, the Managing Committee of School has not accepted the application for CCL. After rejection of the request of the petitioner for CCL on 01.09.2016, the petitioner has again made an application for CCL from 12.07.2016 to 07.08.2016 and from 09.08.2016 the petitioner reported her duty.

6. The school authorities have not granted CCL to the petitioner but the petitioner was on leave till 28.09.2016, for taking care of her ailing child. The respondents have issued show cause upon the petitioner as to why disciplinary proceeding shall not be initiated for unauthorized absence of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted her reply but the same was not accepted and charge sheet was issued against the petitioner.

7. The departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was subsequently dropped as per the decision taken by the Managing Committee with the warning to discharge her duty in proper manner failing which appropriate action will be taken against her.

8. The respondents have treated the leave period of the petitioner from 12.07.2016 to 07.08.2016 as medical leave and remaining period from 09.08.2016 to 28.09.2016 without pay.

9. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Memorandum No. 5560-F(D) dt. 17.07.2015, a female employee to take maximum period of two years, i.e. 730 days as Child Care Leave. The petitioner relied upon clause (iii) (iv) and (v) of the said memorandum which reads as follows:-

(iii) It may not be granted more than 3 (three) spells in a calendar year.

(iv) It may not be granted less than 15 days is a spell.

(v) Child Care Leave shall not be debited against leave account.

10. The Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner enjoyed first spell of CCL from 08.03.2016 to 22.03.2016 and the petitioner is entitled to get other two spell and accordingly the petitioner had applied for second spell from 12.07.2016 to 07.08.2016 and third spell from 09.08.2016 to 28.09.2016 in the same year but the respondents have illegally rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of CCL.

11. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Purnima Sarkar & Ors. –vs-State of West Bengal & Ors. Reported in (2018) 11 CHN 112.

12. The Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned let