Women govt employees to get Child Care Leave: SC

Women employees of Himachal Pradesh Government can now avail child care leave as the state government on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that it has notified the Central Civil Services (Leave) Himachal Pradesh Amendment Rules, 2024 to enable them avail of this facility.

On behalf of the Himachal Pradesh Government, advocate DK Thakur told a Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh that Rule 43C on Child Care Leave was notified on July 31.

“Subject to the provisions of this rule, a female government servant may be granted child care leave by an authority competent to grant leave for a maximum period of 730 days during her entire service for taking care of her child with a minimum disability of 40 per cent as specified in the Government of India Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s Notification No.16-18/96-N 1.1, stated the 1st June, 2001 up to two surviving children,” Clause 1 of Rule 43C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Himachal Pradesh Amendment Rules, 2024 read.

Following the Himachal Pradesh Government’s submission that the relevant rule has been amended and notified to enable women employees to get Child Care Leave, the Bench disposed of a petition filed by Shalini Dharmani — an Assistant Professor at the Department of Geography in Government College, Nalagarh who has a 14-year-old son with special needs.

Earlier, noting that the state can’t be oblivious to the special concerns of working women, the Supreme Court had in April ordered the Himachal Pradesh Government to constitute a three-member committee headed by Chief Secretary to reconsider the entire aspect of the grant of Child Care Leave to mothers, including those bringing up children with special needs and submit a report to it by July 31.

“In the meantime, pending further orders, the application by the petitioner for the grant of special leave under Rule 32 of the CCS (Leave) Rules shall be favourably considered by the competent authorities,” it had said.

“The participation of women in the work force is not a matter of privilege, but a constitutional entitlement protected by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution; besides Article 19(1)(g). The state as a model employer cannot be oblivious to the special concerns which arise in the case of women who are part of the workforce,” it had noted.

“The provision of Child Care Leave to women subserves the significant constitutional object of ensuring that women are not deprived of their due participation as members of the workforce. Otherwise, in the absence of a provision for the grant of Child Care Leave, a mother may well be constrained to leave the workforce,” the top court had said in its April 22 order.

Dharmani’s son suffered from a rare genetic disorder i.e. Osteogenesis Imperfecta and had undergone several surgeries since birth and required continuous treatment, surgical intervention to survive and lead a normal life.

Due to the treatment of her son, she had exhausted all her sanctioned leave. She had sought additional Child Care Leave under Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972, which provided for paid leave for a maximum period of two years, i.e., 730 days during the entire service for taking care of up to two children whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness. On March 3, 2010, the Centre extended the age of the child from 18 years to 22 years.

On November 16, 2018, her request was rejected on the ground that the Himachal Pradesh Government has not adopted provisions for Child Care Leave, forcing her to move the Himachal Pradesh High Court which dismissed her petition April 23, 2021, noting that Rule 43-C has been deleted by the state.

However, the Supreme Court had said that “the policies of the state have to be consistent and must be synchronised with constitutional protections and safeguards.”

On Wednesday, Singh told the Bench that the petitioner has already availed the benefits of the 2024 Rules in as much as 93 days of ChildCare Leave has been availed and duly granted.

The Bench gave liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the state government for enlarging the benefit under the Child Care Leave rule. “If any such representation is made, the respondent state shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible,” it said.