Regulations for child care leave apply to all female employees, irrespective of employment status, reinforcing gender equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Abdul Moin, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3.

2. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3 states that as only a short question of law is involved, as such, he does not intend to file any counter affidavit and prays that the matter may be decided on the basis of arguments as advanced. Consequently, the Court proceeds to decide the matter.

3. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. A further prayer is for a Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow child care leave to the petitioner on account of the ongoing treatment of minor son of the petitioner.

4. The case set forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a Professor with the respondent no. 3 i.e Maharaja Suhel Dev Swashasi Rajya Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya Evam Maharshi Balark Chikitsalaya, Bahraich.

5. It is contended that the petitioner's son is suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder owing to which he is enrolled in an integrated Early Intervention Program at Geniuslane Child Development Center, Lucknow. Copy of the certificate issued by the development center dated 17.11.2022 is annexure 3 to the writ petition.

6. It is contended that as certain complications have developed with the son of the petitioner consequently, the petitioner applied for child care leave before the authority concerned i.e the respondent no. 3. The said request has been turned down by means of the impugned order dated 09.06.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition and hence the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the order impugned dated 09.06.2023 would indicate that the respondent no. 3 while rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of child care leave has placed reliance on an office memorandum dated 08.12.2008 to indicate that the female teachers working in Government and Aided Institution would not be entitled for child care leave and consequently, the application for child care leave given by the petitioner has been rejected.

8. Reliance has been placed on the UGC Regulations of Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 2018") to contend that Clause 8.4 (IX) of Regulations, 2018 specifically provides that women teacher having any minor child/children may be granted leave up to a period of two years for taking care of the minor child/children.

9. Placing reliance on Regulations, 2018 along with the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya v. State of U.P and Ors passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24627 of 2017 decided on 29.05.2017, the contention is that the respondent no. 3 has patently erred in law while rejecting the application of the petitioner for child care leave despite the Regulations, 2018 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya (supra) specifically providing for grant of child care leave to the persons entitled for the same.

10. On the other hand, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3 has justified the order impugned dated 09.06.2023 by contending that till such time the office memorandum dated 08.12.2008 continues to be operative, the petitioner would not be entitled for grant of child care leave.