Central Administrative Tribunal
NISHA DEVI vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 15 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAMMU Order Sheet Item no.: 1 O.A./1433/2026 (JAMMU) [ MATERNITY LEAVE ] Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: 1 Order Dated: 15/10/2026 NISHA DEVI Vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Ms. Shivani Jalali, Sr. Adv. asstd. by Neeraj Verma For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned Addl. A.G. Order of The Tribunal The applicant is aggrieved of the Order No. ZEO/D/879 dated 30.09.2026, issued by respondent no. 04, ZEO Dandesar, whereby application seeking Child Care Leave(CCL) erroneously granted into statutory Maternity Leave for a period of 180 days has been arbitrarily rejected on the purported ground that Rule 41(1)(ii) of the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979 as amended vide SRO 353 enforces a strict two living children ceiling, treating the applicant as ineligible for maternity leave for her third child, despite the fact that her first child was born prior to her entry into government service. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Umadevi v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Ors., dated 23.05.2025, in Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 2025, and the judgment passed by the Srinagar Bench of this Tribunal in Dr. Saima Jan v. University of Kashmir and Ors., in TA No. 128/2024, and the judgment passed by this Bench in Meenakshi Sharma v. UT of J&K and Ors. in OA 1135 of 2024, dated 05.02.2026.
Heard learned senior counsel for the applicant for some time. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on or before the next date of hearing. Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned Additional Advocate General appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Respondents are directed to file reply within four weeks. List on 16.11.2026. Meanwhile, as an interim measure, the impugned Order No. ZEO/D/879 dated 30.09.2026, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing, and the respondents shall consider the applicant's case in the light of aforementioned judgments. Diwakar SIngh Member (J) Ram Mohan Johri Member (A) Rajat Pathania ( )