Child Care Leave under Rule 43-C is not absolute; requires prior sanction and cannot justify unauthorized prolonged absence, allowing Dies-Non and penalties.

ORDER

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

i) To set aside the order passed by respondent no. 5 i.e. Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala Division Ambala dated 06.12.2019 (Annexure A-12) and 26.03.2018 (Annexure A-18) and also order passed by respondents no. 3 i.e. The Director, Postal Service (HQ), Haryana Circle, Ambala District Ambala order dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure A-21) and further direct the respondent to grant child care leave with retrospective effect w.e.f. 18.09.2018 to the applicant and other consequential benefits.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant joined the Postal Department as Postal Assistant in Ambala Division in the year 2004 and has an unblemished service record. The Government of India issued memorandum dated 11.09.2008 (Annexure A-1) and amended the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 by inserting Rule 43-C vide notification dated 01.12.2009 (Annexure A-2) providing Child Care Leave up to 730 days for women employees having minor children for taking care of them.

3. The applicant applied in advance through proper channel on 05.10.2017 for grant of Child Care Leave for the period 25.03.2018 to 10.03.2020 to take care of her two minor children, as her husband was working in Pune and she had no family support at Ambala (Annexure - 4). The request was rejected on 16.10.2017. She again submitted applications dated 13.01.2018, 19.04.2018 and 24.05.2018 (Annexure A-5 colly). Respondent no.5 granted only 10 days CCL w.e.f. 20.05.2018 vide order dated 29.05.2018 (Annexure A-6) and directed her to join duty immediately vide order dated 30.05.2018, followed by reminder dated 03.08.2018.

4. A show cause notice dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure A-7) was issued alleging unauthorized absence w.e.f. 04.08.2018and on the same day, without waiting for her reply, the period from 30.05.2018 to 03.08.2018 was treated as DIES-NON vide order dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure A-8). Again, vide order dated 19.09.2018 (A-9), the period from 04.08.2018 to 17.09.2018 was treated as DIES-NON without any prior notice.

5. The applicant was issued SCN on 01.02.2019 and 01.04.2019 for remaining absence. She joined duty from 04.05.2019 and worked till 05.06.2019. Subsequently, a memorandum under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued on 20.09.2019 (Annexure A-10), to which the applicant submitted a detailed reply on 03.10.2019 (Annexure A-11). Ignoring her explanation and circumstances, respondent no.5 passed order dated 06.12.2019 (A-12) imposing punishment of ―withholding one increment for two years without cumulative effect‖ and treating the period from 18.09.2018 to 03.05.2019 and from 04.06.2019 to 06.12.2019 as DIES-NON.

6. The applicant kept requesting for grant of CCL and also sought transfer to Pune. Instead, further show cause notices dated 18.05.2020 and 26.10.2020 (Annexure A-13) were issued. The applicant again submitted her reply and application for grant of CCL from 03.11.2020 to 15.04.2021 on 03.11.2020 (Annexures A-14, A-15). Though she was promoted on 26.08.2020, she declined promotion vide letter dated 08.03.2021 (Annexure A-16) due to family circumstances. She rejoined duty on 26.02.2021.

7. The Respondent no.5 again passed order dated 26.03.2021 (A- 18) treating the period from 04.06.2019 to 25.02.2021 as DIES-NON. The applicant filed appeal dated 24.04.2021 (A-19) against order dated 06.1