KAKALI GHOSH versus CHIEF SECRETARY, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 334 · Decided: 15-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2014) 14 S.C.R. 334 
KAKALI GHOSH 
v. 
· CHIEF SECRETARY, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR 
ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4506 of 2014) 
• 
. APRIL 15, 2014. 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
· V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
C 
Service Law: 
Child Care Leave (CCL) - 'Claim of appellant for 730 
days of child care leave in continuity - Held: In the instant 
case, respondents have not shown any reason to refuse 
0 . 730 days continuous leave - Order of Central Administrative 
Tribunal to act strictly in accordance with OOPT O.M. dated 
· 11.9.2008 as amended/clarified on 29.9.2008 and 
18.11.2008, granting the appellant CCL for the due period 
affirmed with a direction to respondents to comply with 
E directions issued by Tribunal - Central Civil Services 
(Leave) Rules, 1972-rr. 43-C (3) and (4). 
In the instant appeal, the question for consideration 
before the Court was: whether a woman employee of 
the Central Government could ask for uninterrupted 730 
F days of Child Care Leave {CCL) under r. 43-C of the 
Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 From a plain reading of sub rr. (3) and (4) 
G of r. 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 
1972, it is clear that CCL even beyond 730 days can be 
granted by combining other leave if due. However, 
.under sub-r. (2) of r. 7, leave can be refused or revoked 
H 
334 
KAKALI GHOSH v. CHIEF SECY., ANDAMAN & NICOBAR 335 
ADMN. 
by the competent authority in the case of exigencies of A 
public service. [Para 13and15][341-A, G] 
1.2 In the.instant case, the appellant claimed for 
730 days of CCL at a stretch to ensure success of her 
son in th3; forthcoming secondary/senior examinations B 
(10th /11 standard). The competent authority allowed 
45 days of CCL in favour of the appellant. However, no 
reason has been shown for disallowing rest of the period 
of leave. [Para 14][341-C-D] 
1.3 The finding of the High Court is based neither c 
on r. 43-C nor on guidelines issued by the Central 
Government. The Tribunal was correct in directing the 
respondents to act strictly in accordance with the 
guidelines issued by the Government of India and r. 43-
C. The impugned judgment dated 18.09.2012, passed D 
by the Division Bench of the High Court, is set aside 
and the judgment and order dated 30.04.2012, passed 
by the Tribunal is affirmed with a direction to the 
respondents to comply with the directions issued by 
the Tribunal. [Paras 13 and 18][341-B; 342-D-E] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
4506 of 2014. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2012 of 
the Calcutta High Court, Port Blair Circuit Bench at Port 
Blair in WPCT No. 550 of 2012. 
F 
Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Mrs. Bhuvneshwari Devi, 
Jag dish Kumar Chawla, Advs., for the Appellant. 
Balasubramanian, K. V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs. G. Indira, 
Advs., for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgm!'lnt of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave 
granted. 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment 
dated 1 ath September, 2012 passed by the High Court of 
Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. By the impugned judgment, 
the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed the writ 
petition and set aside the judgment and order dated 30th April, 
B 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta, 
Circuit Bench at Port Blair (hereinafter referred to as, 'the 
Tribunal'). 
· 
. 3. The only question which requires to be determined in 
this appeal is whether a woman employee of the Central 
C Government can ask for uninterrupted 730 days of Child Care 
· Leave (hereinafter referred to as, - 'the CCL') under Rule 43-
C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter 
referred to as, 'the Rules'). 
D 
4. The appellant initially applied for CCL for.six months 
commencing from 5th July, 2011 by her letter dated 15th May, 
2011 to take care of her son who was in 10th standard. In her 
application, she intimated that she is the only person to look 
after her minor son and her mother is a heart patient and has 
E not recovered from the shock due to the sudden demise of her 
father; her father-in-law is almost bed ridden and in such 
circumstances, she was not in a position to perform her duties 
effectively. While her application was pending, she was 
transferred to Campbell Bay in Nicobar District (Andaman and 
F 
Nicobar) where she joined on oath July, 2011. By
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.