CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO.931-CH-2011
Chandigarh,
this the 30th day of September, 2011
CORAM: Hon'ble Mrs. Shyama Dogra, Member
(J). Hon'ble Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member (A).
Mrs. Aarti Rani, wife of Shri Ashwani Kumar, aged 39 years,
presently working as Postal Assistant in Post Office Sector-15, Chandigarh
(U.T.)-160015.
Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry Communication &
Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New
Delhi-110016.
2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chandigarh Division,
Sector-17, GPO Building, Chandigarh (UT)-160017.
Respondents
Present: Sh. D.R. Sharma, the counsel for the
applicant.
Sh. Rohit Sharma, vice Sh. Deepak Agnihotri, the counsel for the
respondents.
O R D E R (Oral)
By Hon'ble Mrs. Shyama Dogra, Member (J):-
1.
This is a second round of litigation by
the applicant for quashing of impugned order Annexure A-1 dated 30.8.2011
whereby, her request to grant her child care leave has been rejected by
the respondents.
2.
The claim of the applicant is that Govt.
of India issued office memorandums dated 11.9.2008 and 07.9.2010. Under those
memorandums, women employees having minor children are to be granted Child Care
Leave (CCL for short) for a maximum of two years during their entire service
period for taking care of up to two children till the age of 18 years for the
purpose of their care and taking care of any of their needs like examinations,
sickness etc. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
the applicant has twins, who are pursuing their studies in 10+1,
Non-Medical. Since the husband of the applicant is posted at a far-away
place in Amritsar, the applicant has to look after these two children,
therefore, she had applied for child care leave, which has been denied by the
respondents by passing a
non-speaking order. Aggrieved by that order, the applicant had filed an
O.A and her case was remanded to the respondents to re-examine the matter
afresh and pass speaking orders. Impugned order annexure A-1 is an
outcome of those directions given by the Court.
3.
While challenging this impugned order, the
main contention of the applicant is that since these office memorandum are for
the purpose of giving some relief to eligible women employees to enable them to
look after their children properly, therefore, the respondents should not have
rejected her request for CCL, keeping in view the fact that earlier also she
was granted this leave for three months when the applicant had to look after
her children during their final examination. It is not denied by the
applicant that this special child care leave cannot be claimed as a matter of
right, yet the fact remains that this leave is to be granted for a particular
purpose as mentioned in these instructions, therefore, if the applicant is not
granted this leave the whole purpose of this scheme formulated for the benefit
of women employees will be defeated. The learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the applicant will not be able to take this leave after
2013 as her children will become major by that time and their exams would be
over.
4. The learned counsel for the
applicant has also objected to the findings given by the competent authority
with regard to shortage of staff in Chandigarh Postal Division on the ground
that earlier also the applicant was posted to other post offices in Sector 36
and sector 44 which falsify the plea of the respondents that there is a
shortage of staff as the applicant at present also is working in sector-15 Post
office. She has categorically mentioned that out of the total strength of 486
permanent posts of postal assistants, 455 postal assistants are on the rolls,
hence there is no shortage of staff and in case she is granted CCL, there is
still a provision for appointment of an incumbent against a leave vacancy and
the respondents can make necessary arrangements for such period for which the
applicant has applied for CCL.
5.
The respondents have filed a written
statement and have supported the impugned order on the ground that the
applicant has not exhausted all the departmental remedies before coming to this
Court, therefore, this O.A. is premature and liable to be dismissed as she can
still file a representation to the higher authority against the impugned order
Annexure A-1. The respondents have also categorically mentioned that grant of
CCL cannot be asked for as a matter of right by the women employees and it can
only be granted under special circumstances and she was also granted this leave
during the final examination of her children and therefore, it cannot be said
that the respondents are not considerate to women employees in the matter of
grant of CCL. The plea of the applicant for grant of this leave has been
rejected by the competent authority in view of the instructions of DOPT dated
18.11.2008 (R/2) in the interest of smooth functioning of the office and
keeping in view that if CCL is granted in routine, then the office work would
suffer in various departments. Since the applicant has not mentioned any
valid reason for grant of this leave, therefore, there is no illegality in
passing of the impugned order Annexure A-1, which is fully supported with
reasons and the same is liable to be upheld.
6. The applicant has filed a rejoinder and reiterated the
submissions as made in the O.A.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully
gone through the record.
8. The instructions issued by the
respondents on 11th September, 2008 and clarifications issued later on, clearly
envisage that CCL cannot be demanded as a matter of right but the fact remains
that this benefit has been given to the women employees to facilitate them so
that they can devote adequate time to the care of their minor children upto the
age of 18 years, which may be for the purpose of their up-bringing to look
after any of their specific needs like examinations, sickness etc. This
leave can be granted for a maximum of 3 spells in a year.
9. Therefore, once a particular
scheme is introduced by the employer for the benefit of its employees, it
should be implemented in a fair and rational manner and we are of the view that
the respondents need not have completely rejected the request of the applicant
for CCL as she needs this leave for the purpose of devoting some extra time to
her minor children. Instead of completely rejecting her request, the
respondents should have considered sympathetically her prayer for grant of CCL
around the examination time.
10. Therefore, in our considered
opinion, the matter requires re-examination. Thus, the impugned order dated
30.8.2011 (Annexure A-1) is hereby quashed and set aside while giving
directions to the respondent concerned to consider sympathetically the prayer
of the applicant for grant of CCL in different spells during and around
the examination period of her children. Needful be done within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With these directions as above, this O.A. stands disposed
of with no orders as to costs.
(PROMILLA
ISSAR)
(SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER
(A)
MEMBER (J)
Place: Chandigarh.
Dated: 30.9.2011.
Courtesy :
aipeup3chq.blogspot.com
