The court ruled that the denial of Child Care Leave based on administrative grounds, while granting Extraordinary Leave, was arbitrary and discriminatory, undermining the rights of the employee.

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2478/2018, titled Smt. Rajesh Rathi v. GNCTD & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner had filed the above O.A. seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) Direct the respondents to grant CCL, which are in credit of the applicant as per service record.

(b) Direct the respondent to convert all the EOL taken of applicant during the aforesaid period i.e. from July 2015 to till date into CCL for which, the applicant is entitled as per rules.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. In a nutshell, the background of the case is that the petitioner is employed as a TGT (Mathematics) at the Government Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Hiran Kudna, New Delhi. She sought Child Care Leave ( in short, ‘CCL’) on multiple occasions to take care of her two children who were studying in Classes X and XII, while her husband, a Marine Engineer, remained out of India for long durations due to work.

4. The petitioner first applied for CCL for 149 days (03.08.2015 to 29.12.2015) to the Principal/respondent no. 4 on 14.07.2015, which was objected to by the respondent no.4, that is, the Principal of the school, vide letters dated 16.07.2015 and 23.07.2015, on the ground that no substitute Mathematics Teacher was available in the school, and the said request could only be allowed after arranging a substitute Mathematics Teacher, as the same is essential for the welfare of the students.

5. The petitioner again applied for CCL for a period of 114 days from 07.09.2015 to 29.12.2015. It is averred that the said request of petitioner was again not granted, however, the respondent no.4, vide letter dated 11.09.2015, informed the higher authorities that he had no objection to the grant of CCL to the petitioner if a substitute or guest teacher could be arranged.

6. The petitioner was later granted CCL for 78 days from 16.01.2016 to 02.04.2016.

7. It is averred that as her children were appearing in Board Exams, the petitioner availed Earned Leave (in short, ‘EL’) from 06.03.2017 to 30.04.2017. Thereafter, on 21.05.2017, she applied for Extraordinary Leave (in short, ‘EOL’), since her request for CCL was not being considered. The respondent no.4, however, rejected even the said application on the ground that the CCL request was still pending, thereby, compelling the petitioner to again avail EL from 03.07.2017 to 31.07.2017.

8. It is the petitioner case that on 02.08.2017, she again applied for CCL but was compelled to give an undertaking not to seek CCL in future. On this condition, 15 days CCL was granted to her, later extended by 12 days, that is, from 02.08.2017 to 28.08.2017, a total of 27 days.

9. The petitioner claims that as her son remained unwell, she again sought CCL from 17.08.2017 to 28.08.2017, but the request was not considered. In the meantime, her request for EOL was approved by an Order dated 14.09.2017, and 303 days’ EOL was sanctioned for the period 02.07.2017 to 30.04.2018.

10. Being aggrieved by the denial of CCL, the petitioner filed the O.A NO. 2478/2018 before learned Tribunal, seeking directions to respondents to convert all the EOL taken into CCL. The learned Tribunal, vide the Impugned Order, dismissed the said O.A. on the ground that CCL cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the same being subject to the smooth functioning of the school, and that long spells of CCL cannot be permitted if they disrupt such functioning. We