Child Care Leave is a beneficial statutory right intended for the child's welfare; administrative exigencies or staff shortages cannot be used as grounds to arbitrarily deny or curtail such leave, especially during critical academic periods like Board Examinations.

O R D E R (ORAL)

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“I) Call for records from the respondents pertaining to the Child Care Leave application submitted by the applicant on 13.10.2025 (Annexure A5).

II) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant Child Care Leave for the period commencing from 16.12.2025 to 20.05.2026, in the interest of justice and equity.

III) Pass any other appropriate order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of this application.”

2. The facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant sought Child Care Leave for the purpose of providing academic and supervisory support to her minor son who is studying in the 10th standard and is appearing for the forthcoming Board Examinations. It is the grievance of the applicant that despite making repeated and timely representations through proper channel, furnishing complete academic schedules, the respondents failed to consider her request in its true statutory perspective and arbitrarily restricted the grant of Child Care Leave to a short and fragmented period of 18 days while rejecting the remaining period solely on the ground of administrative exigencies, manpower constraints and institutional events. The request of the applicant for re-consideration of the same has not fetched any positive response. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. Learned counsel Shri Satish K. appearing for the applicant would submit that the respondents, while acknowledging the applicant’s eligibility and availability of sufficient leave balance, restricted the leave to a mere 18 days, thereby defeating the very purpose and intent of Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (‘Rules’ for short). The rejection to grant the applicant's request for Child Care Leave for the period requested is ex-facie contrary to the mandate of Rule 43-C of the Rules, which confers a statutory and beneficiary leave intended specifically to support working mothers in ensuring the welfare, academic development and emotional well-being of their minor children. The applicant has sought Child Care Leave in accordance with Rule 43-C of the Rules to give academic, psychological and emotional support to her younger son, who is presently studying in 10th standard and is preparing to appear for the forthcoming Board Examinations. On the basis of administrative inconvenience, staffing shortages, internal workload or institutional events, no statutory benefit could be denied. In his support, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following citations:

1) Kakali Ghosh vs. Chief Secretary, Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors. [(2014) 15 SCC 300)].

2) Ms. Anitha Joseph vs. NIMHANS and Others (OA No. 38/2023 dated 14.02.2024, Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench).

3) NIMHANS vs. Smt. S. Anitha Joseph (Writ Petition No. 11915/2024, dated 20.11.2024, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka).

3) Smt. Sophia B. vs. NIMHANS & Ors. (OA No. 121/2023, dated 01.01.2025, Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench).

4. Learned counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the respondents referring to the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondent organization has been expanding rapidly over the last five years and is engaged in projects