IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No. 117 CWP-24935-2025 Decided on: 03.09.2025 Vespa Dela . . . Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Lalit Pardhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL)

This petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.07.2025, Annexure P-1, whereby the petitioner’s request for Child Care Leave has been declined on the ground that no alternate JBT teacher is available.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is working as JBT teacher in Government Model Sanskriti Primary School at Panchkula and needs the Child Care Leave (CCL) to take care of her son who is preparing for National Defence Academy (NDA) examination to be conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in December 2025. Besides, her mother-in-law is suffering from Coronary Artery Disease with Double Vessel Disease (CAD-

DVD) as per Chronic Disease Certificate dated 01.04.2022, Annexure P-7, and she needs to take care of her. And her father-in-law has also undergone knee replacement surgery on 05.06.2025. In that regard, a reference has been made to his discharge summary, dated 09.06.2025, issued by Kaddam Multispeciality Hospital, Annexure P-8. He further contends that the petitioner has a right to avail CCL under the Haryana Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2016 Rules’), as all the admissible leaves have not been availed by her so far. He has also relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.21506 of 2017 titled Dr. Kanchan Bala v.

State of Haryana and others, to support his contention.

3. Learned State counsel has received instructions from the sixth respondent/School, vide memo dated 03.09.2025; a photocopy whereof has been retained on the case file as Annexure ‘A’. The instructions are as under:

6. It is worthwhile to mention here that the respondent institution fully acknowledges the object and social purpose of Child Care Leave-to enable mothers to balance childcare and service obligations. In this spirit, the petitioner has already been granted approximately 400 days of CCL (Annexed P-1) in the past, with multiple extensions thereby securing ample opportunity to discharge her maternal duties. However, even this benevolence has its legal and practical limits. At present, when the institution is already grossly understaffed, any further extension will hamper, prejudice, and fundamentally undermine the educational rights of students. As custodians of both law and public duty, the respondents cannot prioritize one individual's convenience over the collective interest of hundreds of children, staff members, and stakeholders.

7. That it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner is a class teacher of 2nd class where there is more than 50 students and two teachers are taking classes as per the norms and she is also responsible for Foundational Literacy and Numeracy programme which is for the benefit of class 1 to 3rd class and according to Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 mandates that the Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) must be maintained in all schools which is 30:1.therefore there is no alternate available of her as only 7 regular JBT teachers are working in the school whereas 8 sectioned post are there in the school one JBT teacher is working on temporarily deputation due to the workload in the school hence the case of the petitioner for grant of CCL is not sent to the higher authority as the classes are suffering due to her absence in the school.

3.1. She further contends that the petitioner has already availed about four hundred days’ CCL so far. And the school where she is working is grossly understaffed. Therefore, at this stage it is not feasible to accept her request for grant of more leaves for another three hundred fourteen da