ROSHNI K vs SOUTHERN RAILWAY on 28 October 2026

O R D E R

Applicant is a Station Master (TI Control) in Southern Railway, Kozhikode, who is aggrieved by the rejection of the application for Child Care Leave for 18 months, which was submitted in extreme compelling circumstances.

2. The applicant had started her service as Station Master in Palakkad Division on 09.01.2023. She gave birth to a girl child on 24.02.2025. She had been on maternity leave till 19.07.2025 and rejoined duty on 20.07.2025. Details in the amended O.A. indicate that thereafter, she availed Child Care Leave for 29 days from 25.07.2025 to 22.08.2025. Annexure-A3 shows that from 23.08.2025 she had applied for Child Care Leave for 90 days, but leave for 30 days alone was granted till 21.09.2025. Annexure-A5 indicates that she had applied for Child Care Leave for 30 days from 22.09.2025 to 21.10.2025, which was sanctioned.

3. Further, it is submitted that she had applied for leave without allowance from 22.10.2025 to 07.01.2026, which was rejected. Thus she rejoined duty on 22.10.2025. Then she availed casual leave on 23.10.2025, 24.10.2025, 26.10.2025, 29.10.2025 and 30.10.2025. Then she had applied

Deepa S

for leave without allowance from 01.11.2025 to 07.11.2025, which was allowed. Later, Annexure-A12 shows that she applied for leave without allowances from 08.11.2025 to 27.11.2025, which also was allowed. Thereafter, she applied for leave without allowances from 28.11.2025 to 09.01.2026, however, leave was sanctioned only till 27.12.2025. Then under Annexure-A14 she applied for Child Care Leave for 18 months from 03.12.2025 or if it was not sanctionable, Leave Without Allowances from 03.12.2025 to 09.01.2026 and thereafter, Child Care Leave for 180 days from 28.12.2025. The grievance of the applicant is that, by Annexure-A18 order dated 27.12.2025 the application was rejected; aggrieved by the same, she has approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Declare that Annexure-A18 is arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and hence, unconstitutional and quash the same;

(ii) Issue an order or direction commanding the Respondents to consider and sanction the Applicant's request for Child Care Leave for a period of 18 months, commencing from 09.01.2026, strictly in accordance with Rule 551(E) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I;

(iii) Declare that the action of the Respondents in not taking any decision on the Applicant's representations and leave applications for Child Care Leave is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

(iv) Issue a direction to the Respondents to treat the period during which the Applicant was compelled to take Casual Leave and Extraordinary Leave on account of the non-grant of Child.“

Deepa S

4. According to the applicant, immediately after she rejoined duty on 22.10.2025, her application for further leave was rejected, she was directed to attend training. But owing to the continued difficulty in caring for their infant child, she was constrained to avail casual leave on 23.10.2025, 24.10.2025, 26.10.2025, 29.10.2025 and 30.10.2025. Necessity to take casual leave repeatedly was only on account of the absence of any alternate care giver for the minor child and the compelling family circumstances faced by her. She was compelled to manage the professional responsibilities of a demanding operational post while simultaneously attending the constant needs of her infant child, without any support from her own family or that of the spouse, she is left to struggle completely on her own, like a lone individual trying to survive in unfamiliar circumstances. This situation has caused severe physical, mental and emotional hardship.

5. It is further submitted that there were circumstances compelling her to avail leave either Child Care Leave, Casual Leave or Leave Without Allowances. Her parents are aged and unable to take care of the child. Similarly, her father-in-law is visually challenged, thus they are not

Deepa S

getting support from both the families. Her husband is an Assistant Manger in Air Traffic Control at Calicut International Airport. Both herself and her husband are employed in operational, highly sensitive posts, involving shift duties and continuous engagement with traffic regulation, operational safety and security related responsibilities leaving no scope for fixed working hours or regular child care arrangements. In the circumstances, she had no option, but to apply for further Child Care Leave for 18 months as shown in Annexure-A14.

6. Since she had availed three spells of Child Care Leave in 2025, was unable to upload her further application for leave through HRMS portal and that is why she gave Annexure-A14 application through conventional mode, but that was not considered and rejected through Annexure-A18, which is illegal.

7. Referring to Annexure-A10 show cause notice issued to her, she submitted that, her husband, without her knowledge and consent, had addressed a letter to the Hon'ble Minister of State for Railways highlighting the plight and hardships faced by the applicant and her minor child. Thereafter, the said communication was issued to her asking to explain why

Deepa S

action shall not be taken for the act of indiscipline and violation of Conduct Rules, within 7 days. According to her, she gave detailed reply to Annexure-A10, the explanation was found satisfactory and no misconduct was attributable to her. Rule 551(E) of Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume-I governing Child Care Leave is a welfare oriented provision intended to enable a working mother to effectively discharge her maternal responsibilities during the formative years of the child. It does not prohibit grant of Child Care Leave in one continuous spell, subject to overall ceiling of 730 days. Therefore, refusal to consider or rejection of Annexure-A14 is unsustainable.

8. Further, the very nature of the leave, which can be combined with any other kind of leave, indicates that it can be sanctioned flexibly, taking into account the exigencies faced by a working mother. Her application should not have been rejected on technical grounds, especially when she was forced into seeking Extraordinary Leave due to the respondents' refusal to grant Child Care Leave as originally requested.

Deepa S

9. Referring to Annexure-A15 decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kakali Ghosh v. Chief Secretary, Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others [(2014) 15 SCC 300] it is submitted that Child Care Leave is a beneficial provision and its object is to ensure the welfare of the child and enable the mother to take care of their minor child; the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that such welfare provisions must be interpreted liberally and purposively and not in a narrow, technical or mechanical manner.

10. Further it is submitted that denial of the Child Care Leave in the present case directly affects the fundamental rights of the child including the right to care, protection and healthy development, which are integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. As a model employer, the respondents are duty bound to act in a manner consistent with the principles of the best interest of the child as recognised under the constitutional jurisprudence and international obligations including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which India is a signatory. Compelling the applicant to perform demanding operational duties without ensuring appropriate care giving arrangements for the

Deepa S

infant child defeats the very object of Child Care Leave and results in indirect prejudice to the child, which is impermissible in law.

11. Similarly, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others [AIR 2022 SC 4108] it is submitted that the service jurisprudence relating to maternity and child care must be interpreted in a manner that furthers the object and purpose of the legislation, and that constitutional courts must adopt an interpretation that advances substantive equality and enables working women to balance professional responsibilities with care giving obligations. The rigid approach taken by the respondents defeats the very object sought to be achieved by the grant of Child Care Leave.

12. Similarly, referring to the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) [(2000) 3 SCC 224] and the later line of decisions like Deepika Singh, quoted supra, it is submitted that the Apex Court has recognised motherhood and care giving as integral facets of dignity and equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. Denial or non-consideration of Child Care Leave in the present case directly infringes upon these constitutional guarantees.

Deepa S

13. Further, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions indicate that the welfare measures extended to women employees cannot be diluted or denied through executive rigidity or procedural technicalities. Maternity and childcare-related benefits are not concessions, but statutory and constitutional entitlements flowing from the right to dignity and equality.

14. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to consider the peculiar and compelling circumstances including the tender age of the child, the absence of any alternate caregiver, the aged and ailing parents on both sides, and the fact that both the applicant and her spouse are employed in highly sensitive operational posts involving shift duties and security-related responsibilities. The continued denial of appropriate leave has resulted in severe physical, mental, and emotional hardship to the applicant and has adversely affected the welfare of the minor child. According to the applicant, Annexure-A18 is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and it elevates administrative constraints and hypothetical vacancy projections about the statutory object of the Rule. By denying her Child Care Leave on speculative and broad statistical grounds without

Deepa S

examining her individual entitlement and compelling circumstances the 4th respondent had acted arbitrarily and in disregard to the legislative intent underlying the provision. Thus the impugned order amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power contrary to the object of Rule 551(E) and is liable to be set aside.

15. According to the applicant, the statistics given in the Annexure-A18 is not based on relevant considerations, but is a pretext to deny the statutory benefit. She alleges malice against the Senior Divisional Operations Manager, who is proposed to be included as 5th respondent in his personal capacity. It is the result of a colourable exercise of power, passed not for the purpose for which the authority is conferred, but to penalise and victimise the applicant.

16. According to her, Annexure A-18 is vitiated by factual misrepresentation and selective disclosure. The order relies solely on the number of vacancies in the SM cadre to justify the denial of Child Care Leave, without disclosing the sanctioned strength, the leave reserve component, or the effective working strength of the cadre. By projecting vacancy figures in isolation, the 4th Respondent creates an impression of

Deepa S

administrative impossibility, whereas Master Circular No. 41 makes it clear that sanctioned strength in non-gazetted categories includes a leave reserve provision precisely to absorb absence on leave. The impugned order does not advert to this structural framework at all. Vacancy in itself is not determinative of operational incapacity. What is relevant is whether the cadre, inclusive of leave reserve, is unable to sustain the temporary absence of one employee. Annexure A-18 is completely silent on this aspect and therefore factually misleading, incomplete and intended to justify a predetermined conclusion, rendering the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

17. In the O.A, there are only four respondents. Thereafter, the applicant filed MA/257/2026 seeking to implead the Senior Divisional Operations Manager, the 4th respondent in his personal capacity as the additional 5th respondent. Even though notice was issued in the MA to the proposed respondent, ultimately that application has not been allowed. That means, still, there are only four respondents in the O.A. In the amended O.A., the said proposed respondent also has been impleaded as the additional 5th respondent, which is not in conformity with the order of

Deepa S

the Tribunal. Therefore, he shall not be shown in the cause title.

18. To the amended O.A., the 4th respondent filed reply on behalf of all the respondents challenging the very maintainability of the O.A. According to him, the General Manager is not a necessary party to the proceedings and has been unnecessarily impleaded as the respondent. It is submitted that applicant had joined as Station Master on 09.01.2023 and after completion of training was posted as Station Master at Kozhikode under the control of the Traffic Inspector, Calicut. Being a lady, special consideration was given to her at the time of initial appointment by giving a posting at her home town, Kozhikode. She had joined Calicut station on 07.06.2023. She gave birth to a baby girl on 24.02.2025 and availed maternity leave from 21.01.2025 to 19.07.2025 and rejoined duty on 20.07.2025.

19. The leave application dated 01.12.2025 from the applicant was received at their office on 01.12.2025, by post. As per Railway Board Circular dated 27-07-2023 (RBE No. 94/2023), after the launch of the leave module of HRMS, all leave applications shall be processed only through leave module and manual processing of leave shall be discontinued. In view

Deepa S

of above, the manual leave application submitted by the applicant could not be processed as it is against the said circular.

20. As directed by this Tribunal, the request of the applicant for 18 months Child Care Leave was considered and Annexure-R(B)/A18 order was passed on 27.12.2025 rejecting the same.

21. The respondents have gone through the personal details of her husband's job tension and health condition of both the parents mentioned though the veracity is not ascertained. But it is submitted that assuming it to be true, this is not a unique or solitary case in a working environment. A special privilege cannot be given to a single person which will result in a discriminatory treatment of many others.

22. According to the respondents, from Annexures-A1 to A6 it is clear that leave was sanctioned on several times from 23.08.2025 to 21.11.2025. Leave was sanctioned from 23.08.2025 to 21.09.2025 as can be seen from Annexure-A4. Before the completion of every cycle of leave, the applicant has made application for Child Care Leave and despite the pressing demands of the requirement of staff, the respondents have made every effort to grant her leave from 21.01.2025 till 21.10.2025, for a

Deepa S

continuous period of 9 months including the maternity leave and three spells of Child Care Leave. The applicant had submitted application for Leave Without Pay from 22.10.2025 to 07.01.2026, which could not be sanctioned on account of administrative exigencies and she is well aware of the same and how the other lady staff at her work place is struggling and juggling to attain a work-life balance. The applicant was not sent for any training, as stated by her. Station Masters under TI control are required to work in the stations under his jurisdiction, as relieving duty Station Master vice vacancy/leave at stations. (Jurisdiction of TI/CLT is from Feroke station to Thikkoti station for a length of 44 kms). On resuming duty, the applicant was directed to work at Feroke station which is at a distance of only 10 Kms from Kozhikode. Station Masters directed to work at new stations are permitted two or three days to familiarise with the train working at such stations before taking independent duty, which is considered as training. The applicant was available at Feroke station for nine days but was there for three days, availed casual leave for 5 days and took independent duty only one day, i.e., on 31.10.2025.

Deepa S

23. The applicant had taken casual leave on 23.10.2025, 24.10.2025, 26.10.2025, 29.10.2025 and 30.10.2025. She has highlighted personal difficulty in making alternate arrangements in taking care of her child as the sole factor which is not an isolated case in the department and prefers to close eyes on her other professional responsibilities and commitments. It is a universal truth and fact that every working mother is striving to maintain a work life balance but public service exigencies must prevail over private ones.

24. Further, referring to Rule 551(E)(I) it is submitted that granting of Child Care Leave is only directory and it is the discretion of the leave sanctioning authority; as the employee does not have an unfettered right, a discretionary power is conferred on the sanctioning authority, either to sanction or refuse the leave. Moreover, Rule 503 of the Code states that, 'leave cannot be claimed as of right and leave of any kind may be refused or revoked by the authority competent to grant it'.

25. The respondents had been extremely considerate and lenient in sanctioning leave throughout. That is evident from the narration of facts made by the applicant. But she continuously applied for leave. Regarding

Deepa S

the rejection of Extraordinary Leave, the division was not in a position to grant further leave for the employee due to the acute shortage of staff and hence the application had to be rejected on account of administrative exigency. Public interest and administrative exigencies cannot be overlooked beyond a point and there should not be any room for allegations of discriminatory treatment of granting privileges to the employee. Public interest cannot be lost sight off. Hence the situation pointed out by the applicant is not correct.

26. Further it is submitted that Child Care Leave cannot be granted for more than three spells in a calendar year except in extraordinary circumstances. More than three spells can be granted in a year only if child is admitted in hospital. Here there is no such case. That was why after an interview with the Senior Divisional Operating Manager, Palakkkad, at the time of sanctioning the third spell of Child Care Leave from 16.09.2025, the appellant was advised to make necessary alternate arrangements for child care as is done by the other staff.

27. But the applicant tried to exert political influence for taking undue advantage, that was why Annexure-A10 was issued on getting a

Deepa S

representation from her husband, Sarang T.R., Assistant Manager, (ATC), Calicut International Airport to the Hon'ble Minister of State for Railways. Various informal political representations were also received at the office to consider extension of leave. Even though the acts were of grave nature, the department was still granting leave to the applicant taking a humane and compassionate view contrary to the allegations raised by the applicant. As the applicant pleaded ignorance about exerting political influence and as the employee was continuing on leave, no further action was taken on Annexure-A10.

28. As stated in Annexure-A18, after the issue of Annexure-R(A), all leave applications shall be processed only through leave module of HRMS and manual processing of leave shall be discontinued, as per the provisions of IREM, CCL shall not be granted for more than three spells in a calendar year and the applicant was already granted three spells in 2025. Thirdly, administrative exigencies were not favouring the applicant. Hence the allegations are baseless.

29. According to the respondents, there is no dispute that beneficial legislations should be interpreted purposively. However, a

Deepa S

responsible authority cannot close its eyes while public interest and public service are disrupted. The judgments in Kakali Ghosh and Deepika Singh have no application on the facts of the case. The request for further CCL shall be considered as per vacancy position and operational exigencies at the time, which has been stated in Annexure-A18/R(B).

30. Respondents have reiterated the statistics given in Annexure- A18 and submit that the CCL for 18 months was rejected in compelling circumstances taking care of the absolute interest of the public sector undertakings.

31. After carefully considering all the contentions raised by the applicant like quantum of leave already sanctioned to the employee, available staff strength/vacancy position of SMs in the division, existing rule position regarding sanctioning of CCL etc., were considered while rejecting the leave application, there was no ground for personal malice or vindictiveness in this case. They have also tabulated various leaves including maternity leave, Child Care Leave and Leave Without Pay etc. applied for by the applicant in her entire service. Respondents have also made a comparative statement of maternity leave and Child Care Leave

Deepa S

granted to other categories of employees like Station Masters, SHM, Pointman during 2025-2026 and submits that the 4th respondent was exercising administrative prudence ensuring proper functioning of the system. It is his duty to treat all employees equally and special treatment cannot be meted out to any employee. The allegations of personal animosities, strategic fabrication aimed at characterising the Divisional Manager as a biased party in all future administrative actions including sanction of leaves, transfers, postings etc. The allegations against the officer, Sri.Balamurali, who was the then Senior Divisional Operating Manager, were unwarranted and is only a scheming and manipulating pressure tactic vilely employed by the applicant. Annexure A-20 is not based on any personal animosity or malice or vindictiveness. The same has been issued in response to an unlawful interference in the functioning of the department. No malafides is involved on the side of the 5th respondent. At the same time, the applicant is acting in a malicious manner trying to implicate the 5th respondent, who is only diligently doing his duties in his official capacity to get things done in her way by an act of threatening to get him entangled in Court proceedings in his personal

Deepa S

capacity. There has never been any colourable exercise of power. Thus the respondents have prayed for dismissing the O.A.

32. The applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating that the General Manager is the statutory head of the Railway administration and is a necessary party.

33. Further, it is submitted that the applicant does not claim any special privilege but wants consideration of a statutory welfare benefit on the basis of her own compelling circumstances. The assertion that other working mothers also face similar difficulties is no answer in law to her individual claim. Equality does not mean that a genuine claim can be rejected merely because others may also become eligible to make similar claims. There is no unfettered discretion on the part of the respondents in rejecting the claim. The application had to be considered on the basis of objective and individual assessment. That should not have been brushed as a 'universal phenomenon'.

34. Further it is submitted that even assuming that she should not have been granted leave for more than three spells in a calendar year, the application is for 18 months CCL from 09.01.2026 and the 'three spells rule'

Deepa S

does not stand on the way of considering the application.

35. Further it is submitted that even though exaggerated figures have been repeatedly stated the sanctioned strength of Station Masters have been purposely avoided. It is necessary that the leave reserve must be 25% and the rest-giver reserve is 20%. Apart from the regular working strength, there would ordinarily be one rest-giver/rest reserve for every five Station Masters and one leave reserve for every four Station Masters. The vacancies now relied upon by the respondents are, in substantial measure, vacancies of their own creation or, at the least, vacancies which were capable of being anticipated well in advance. Such vacancies do not arise suddenly or unpredictably when they are caused by normal attrition, including retirement, promotion or transfer of personnel. The Railway administration has an established machinery for assessment of vacancies and regular recruitment. It was therefore incumbent upon the respondents to anticipate such vacancies and initiate recruitment or other appropriate staffing measures in time. Administrative inaction or delay in maintaining the sanctioned working strength cannot, by itself, be converted into a ground to impose disproportionate hardship upon serving employees and

Deepa S

their families, particularly where a statutory welfare provision intended for the care of a minor child is involved.

36. According to the applicant, the respondents cannot defeat the welfare object of the Rule by relying upon the generalized staff shortage which was foreseeable and the administration itself was required to be addressed. The interests and care of the child are material considerations which cannot be rendered illusory by administrative inactions. Therefore, the applicant has submitted that Annexure-A18 cannot stand and the O.A. is only to be allowed.

37. Heard Smt.Kala T Gopi, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Sanjana R Nair, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

38. The respective arguments were reiterated by the learned counsel on both sides.

39. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on various authorities as given below:-

1. Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WPS No.5386/2026 (Smt.Manda Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh and others)

2. Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.764/2023 (Shri.Valencio D'Souza v. The Director, Institute of

Deepa S

Psychiatry and Human Behaviour)

3. Judgment of the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.15193/2021 and CM Appeal No. 47854/2021 (Ritu Ravi Prakash v. Union of India)

4. Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.11915/2024 (NIMHANS v. Smt.S.Anitha Joseph)

5. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5308/2022 (Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others)

6. Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WPS No.6831/2024 (Lata Goyal v. Union of India and another)

7. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India [2026 KHC 6182]

8. Judgment of the Kerala High Court in Mini K.T. v. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC, Kozhikode and others [2018 KHC 20]

9. Judgment of the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.10215/2019 (Smt.Rajesh Rathi v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others)

10. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2024 KHC 8188]

40. The learned counsel for the applicant, explaining the positions reiterated by the various High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court and narrating the family background of the applicant submitted that administrative exigencies cannot be raised as a ground to refuse the Child

Deepa S

Care Leave applied for by the applicant. According to the learned counsel, there is no purpose in stating some figures without even stating the sanctioned strength of Station Masters and also without referring to the necessary leave reserve as provided in the Master Circular. She submitted that the Child Care Leave has been introduced as a beneficial legislation. There is an object behind it. It cannot be rejected showing superficial reasonings. According to her, the respondents have failed to prove the administrative exigencies. The leave applied for by her has been rejected without proper consideration vis a vis object of the legislation. Administrative exigencies can never be raised as a ground for rejecting a benefit sought under the beneficial legislation.

41. According to the learned counsel, such Acts like Maternity Benefit Act, Child Care Leave Act etc. have been introduced with the purpose of bringing up or advancing the interests of women; motherhood is not a private affair. The right of the woman has been upheld in various authorities cited at Bar. The fact that her husband had tried to contact the Minister cannot be a ground for rejecting a benefit under the statute. According to the learned counsel, now, when the O.A. is pending, which

Deepa S

challenges the correctness of Annexure-A18, the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings for unauthorised absence, which is also illegal.

42. Reiterating the family circumstances and the fact that the husband is also working in equally important sensitive post, the respondents cannot term her absence as 'unauthorised absence'. She has already applied for Child Care Leave and other leaves. She has no other go but to take care of the child during her formative stages. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the respondents have gone wrong in rejecting the prayer for Child Care Leave applied through Annexure-A14.

43. On the other hand, according to Smt.Sanjana, the respondents are manning the biggest public sector undertaking, which is a public utility service. The applicant cannot say that any discrimination was shown to her despite the fact that she tried to exert political pressure on the respondents. Annexure-A18 is a well reasoned order, which cannot be called in question. Referring to clause 503 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual it is submitted that leave, even if it is Child Care Leave, is not a right. The respondents have to take care of the public

Deepa S

administration at large, which is more important than the personal difficulties of the applicant. She also placed reliance on various circulars on Child Care Leave like RBE 195/2008 and DoPT OM No.1308/212008-Estt(L) dated 18.11.2008, the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3073/2025 (Suman Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan and others), judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Dr.Sanjay Kumar Bansai [(2009) 15 SCC 168] etc. Similarly, based on a circular issued by the District Judge, Delhi and the DoPT OM dated 18.11.2008, it is submitted that Child Care Leave cannot be sought as a matter of right and that the applicant has no special right.

44. She has also referred to the comparative statement incorporated in the reply and said that no discrimination has been shown to the applicant. The personal difficulties raised by the applicant are common to all working women, especially when both the spouses are employed. So, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the applicant is not entitled to succeed.

45. From the averments of the parties and the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides, it is very clear that both the parties are

Deepa S

taking extremely exclusive stands on the grant of Child Care Leave to the applicant. While the learned counsel for the applicant has highlighted the personal difficulties of the applicant in looking after the child when she is unable to secure support from the parents on both sides, it is her bounden duty to nurse and bring up the child especially when the child is only 1½ years old. It is her only one child. The learned counsel has also highlighted the principles governing the subject that it is a beneficial legislation, that the principle of motherhood and rights of children have to be upheld by the Tribunal while deciding the dispute. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel was highlighting the fact that the applicant is trying to generalise the personal difficulties which is not special to her, but it is general in all the house hold where both the spouses are employed.

46. After having given my anxious considerations to the contentions on both sides, I have feeling that there is a via media for the present controversy raised by both sides. An analysis of the service profile of the applicant indicates that after she had rejoined duty on 20.07.2025 on the expiry of the maternity leave, the applicant has never worked on a regular basis in the organisation. She is a Station Master, which is a

Deepa S

sensitive post falling within safety category. A few days after rejoining duty after the expiry of the maternity leave she proceeded on Child Care Leave, which is natural because at that time, she must be a lactating mother. Thereafter, she availed intermittent leaves, either Child Care Leave or Leave Without Allowance and had never been regular in the work place. Meanwhile, it is evident that she had tried to exert political pressure on the respondents in granting her leave, which is uncommon in service jurisprudence. Even after the issue of Annexures-A10 and A20 communications it is seen that leave was granted to her till 27.12.2025.

47. Before considering the rival contentions, it is only appropriate to reproduce Annexure-A18, which is impugned by the applicant: “ Your request by post, dated 01.12.2025 for sanctioning of 18 months Child Care Leave could not be considered due to the following reasons: As per Railway Board Letter No. PC-VII/2023/HRMS/11 dated 27-07-2023 (RBE No. 94/2023), after the launch of leave module of HRMS, all leave applications shall be processed only through leave module of HRMS and manual processing of leave shall be discontinued. Also, as per the provisions of IREM Vol (I), Child Care leave shall not be granted for more than three spells in a calendar year. Relaxation in this regard vide RB Letter No. E(P&A)I-2019/CPC/LE-2 dated 24-10-2024 is applicable only in the cases where child is admitted in a hospital as inpatient. No such emergency is cited in your request letter. You had already availed 89 days CCL in three spells during the calendar year 2025 and hence further sanctioning of CCL is not possible in the year 2025.

Deepa S

In view of above, the manual leave application submitted by you on 01- 12-2025 cannot be processed and hence was not considered. Regarding the request for LWP from 03-12-2025 to 09-01-2026 mentioned in the above letter, LWP was partially sanctioned from 03-12- 2025 to 27-12-2025, based on your application submitted through HRMS. Further, it may be noted that at present there are 38 vacancies in SM category out of which 22 vacancies are managed by SMs temporarily transferred from MAS division. Three SMs are under Maternity leave, One SM is long absent and two SMs are under long sick. Also two more SMs are due for Maternity leave in January 2025. With the resultant vacancy position of 24 SMs, managing the train passing duties at stations will be difficult. There are 69 lady SMs in Palakkad division and more than 90% of the above employees are eligible for child care leave. Sanctioning of CCL for long duration for all the eligible employees will adversely affect the operations of division. Running of trains in an efficient and punctual manner without compromising the safety of passengers is of paramount importance. In view of above, in important Safety categories like Station Masters,sanctioning of CCL can be done only after taking in to account of the staff position at that time. Every effort has been made by this office to give maximum help to you during this period. 3 Months CCL was sanctioned to you as against the normal practice of 2 Months CCL, as a special case. Further, considering your request and considering your special circumstances, leave without pay was sanctioned by this office from 01-11-2025 to 27-11-2025 and again from 03-12-2025 to 27-12-2025. During the interview with Sr.DOM/PGT at the time of sanctioning the third spell of CCL from 16-09-2025, you were advised to make necessary alternate arrangements for child care. The extension of 30 days CCL was done on humanitarian grounds for the same purpose. In view of the above reasons, sanctioning of 18 months CCL as requested by you is not presently feasible. Request for further CCL shall be considered as per the vacancy position and operational exigencies at the time.”

48. This Tribunal appreciates the valid points raised by the learned

Deepa S

counsel for the applicant touching the a importance of motherhood, the rights of the child etc. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, when such a matter is raised, what is important is the rights of the child which is a universally accepted principle on the basis of international conventions which have been reflected in the various statutes and legislative enactments. At the same time, we cannot say that Child Care Leave is a right. Leave is not a right. It has to be granted by the competent authority. Therefore, the applicant has no vested right even though it is the product of a beneficial legislation and it involves the advancement of the rights of the child and motherhood. At the same time, the 4th respondent, who is manning a big organisation like the Railways who has to give importance to the interest of the Railways which is a public sector and public utility service cannot also be sidelined by the applicant.

49. The Tribunal understands the personal difficulties faced by the applicant in rearing the child in its formative stage. But it is not something novel in a new family set up where the families are small, in contrast to the joint family system which was in vogue in our society. In the earlier days, when joint family was available, rearing children or bringing them up was

Deepa S

never a problem, because it was the duty of the elder women and elders in the family to take care of them. It was never a burden for the parents. At that time both the parents may not be working also. But now joint families have disappeared and in small families, it is the burden of the parents to take care of the children without getting any support and assistance from elders or parents. Here, the applicant is not getting any support from the parents. Her own parents are elderly and have their own difficulties in assisting her. Similarly, the parents of the spouse also have their own handicaps, the father-in-law is completely visually impaired and are unable to extend any support to the family. Her husband is also employed in an equally important place under the Airport Authority. Now, it is submitted that he is due for transfer and she does not know what would be the position if he is transferred to a distant place.

50. Anyhow, it is high time the applicant thinks seriously about finding out alternative ways for rearing the child without choosing to avail leave, all the time. That is practically impossible also. At first she should bear in mind that CCL cannot be sanctioned every time by the mere

Deepa S

asking, without looking around. She has her own responsibilities as a Station Master and that she also will have to be chosen for shift duties even during odd hours. That is not uncommon in the service obligations of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant cannot avail leave for long and claim Child Care Leave as a matter of right. Here, fortunately the child does not have any other difficulty and there is substance in the contention of the respondents that she cannot be granted more than three spells of leave in a calendar year. Earlier, she had applied for further spells of Child Care Leave in 2025 itself when, on her own showing, she had availed three spells of Child Care Leave in the year.

51. Now, she has sought for Child Care Leave for 18 months at a stretch from 09.01.2026 which has been rejected, showing reasons. Highlighting statistics, it is submitted that they find it difficult to grant her leave for such a long spell of time. It is also important that even when the leave was rejected, from the rider in Annexure-A18 it is certain that though such a request is not feasible for the present, request for further Child Care Leave shall be considered as per the vacancy position and operational exigencies at the time. The respondents cannot be heard to say that

Deepa S

whenever such applications for leave is submitted by the applicant or similarly placed employees, it shall be granted as a matter of right. Such a proposition cannot be accepted in any circumstance.

52. Now, nearly 10 months have elapsed after the applicant has left the station, where proceedings have been initiated against her for unauthorised absence. At the same time, I do not want to make any comment for the present, as to how such a proceedings could be initiated when this Tribunal has taken seisin of the matter. Whatever it may be, as hinted earlier, the applicant herself should find out alternative ways and means to rear the child and to bring her up in a most healthy manner. Now it is not necessary for the Tribunal to say as to how such ways and means can be found out. In our society, bringing up children in such circumstances is not very difficult. It is only common that both the parents are in service sector and means are available for bringing up such children on the close supervision of the parents themselves. Without resorting to the same, the applicant cannot rest lamenting that she has no support from the parents, that she will have to sit with the baby all throughout, cannot

Deepa S

be accepted.

53. Kozhikode is a developed city with all modern facilities available. There are similarly placed mothers resuming work, immediately after the expiry of the maternity leave, leaving the new born with caregivers/care taking institutions. Such institutions are functioning to the utmost satisfaction of the parents on the close monitoring of the Social Welfare Development of the State. Only thing is that the applicant should come out of the adamant posture and should view things beyond her nose. She is expected to maintain a work-life balance. The Tribunal cannot look at one side of the shield. In fact, the applicant also could not establish that any discrimination was shown to her or that the 4th respondent had worked in a biased manner while issuing the impugned order.

54. On the other hand, the Tribunal also finds substance in the argument that the supporting statistics stated in the impugned document are without resort to the sanctioned strength of the Station Masters available in the sector. Similarly, the leave reserve/rest reserve components have also not been considered. Anyhow, it is for the respondents to take care of such situation. Annexure-A18 was passed on

Deepa S

27.12.2025, now nearly more than 10 months have passed. The facts and figures stated therein were valid as on the date of issue of the order. Such facts and figures are not static, but are bound to change from time to time. Thereafter, fresh recruitments must have taken place to the category. Therefore, orders should have been passed leaving a window for making a review after a reasonable period, say six months. Such an attitude might give the employee an insight and hope to resume work.

55. It is time for both sides to make review of the respective stands. In that view of the matter, I quash Annexure-A18 and direct the 4th respondent to make a review of the situation based on the facts and figures available on 01.12.2026. Till that time, the application for leave submitted by the applicant for Child Care Leave shall be considered. It is also time for the applicant to consider alternative care giving arrangements for rearing the baby which is not uncommon in the present day circumstances.

56. Resultantly, the Original Application is disposed of quashing Annexure-A18 and directing the 4th respondent to issue fresh orders in the light of the observations made above, having regard to the facts and figures available as on 01.12.2026. Meanwhile, the 4th respondent also

Deepa S

shall consider the request of the applicant to regularise the period of absence from duty from 27.12.2025. The Original Application is disposed of. No costs.

(Dated, this the 28th day of October, 2026)

JUSTICE K. HARIPAL

JUDICIAL MEMBER ds 2026.10.30 11:54:02+05'30' Deepa S

List of Annexures Annexure A1: -A true copy of the leave application for child care leave for a period from 25-07-2025 - 24-8-2025 submitted by the applicant (not fully legible) Annexure A2: A true copy of the leave details downloaded from the website, having a leave ID no 131616373, sanctioning leave from 25-7-2025

- 22-8-2025. Annexure A3: - A true copy of the leave application for child care leave for a period from 23-08-2025 - 21-11-2025 submitted by the applicant (not fully legible) Annexure A4: A true copy of the leave details downloaded from the website, having a leave ID no. 132497541, sanctioning leave from 23-08- 2025 - 21-11-2025. Annexure A5: - A true copy of the leave application for child care leave for a period from 22-09-2025 - 21-10-2025, submitted by the applicant on 16-09- 2025. Annexure A6: A true copy of the leave details downloaded from the website, having a leave ID no. 134225682, sanctioning leave from 22-09- 2025 - 21-10-2025 Annexure A7: A true copy of the representation dated 18.10.2025 before the Senior Divisional Operations Manager. Annexure A8: A true copy of the leave details downloaded from the website dated 29-10-2025 bearing leave ID no. 135893871, rejecting the applicant's leave for the period from 22-10-2025 – 07-01-2026. Annexure A9: A true copy of Rule 551 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I.

Deepa S

Annexure A10: A true copy of the order bearing No. J/T 20/SM/CLT/Leave/1 dated 21.11.2025 issued by the 4th respondent. Annexure A11: true copy of the details downloaded from the website bearing no leave ID 136448910, sanctioning leave from 01.11.2025 - 07-11- 2025 on 30.10.2025. Annexure A12: A true copy of the details downloaded from the website bearing leave ID 136638820, sanctioning leave from 08.11.2025 to 27-11- 2025 dated on 05-11-2025. Annexure A13: A true copy of the representation dated nil seeking leave 28.11.2025 to 09.01.2026 by the applicant. Annexure A14: A true copy of the representation dated 01.12.25 submitted by the applicant to the 4th respondent. Annexure A15: A true copy of the judgment dated 15.04.2014 in Civil Appeal No.4506 of 2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Annexure A16: A true copy of the leave details bearing leave ID No. 138548777 sought leave for 28.11.2025 to 09-01-2025. Annexure-A17 series: True copy of the relevant details of rejections in the applicant's leave application as downloaded from the official Website. Annexure-A18: A true copy of the Order bearing No. J/T20/P OA607/2025 dated 27.12.2025, rejecting the applicant's Annexure-A14 representation by the 4th respondent. Annexure-A19: A true copy of the Master circular 41, which deals with consolidated instructions with respect to the Leave reserve provision in non-gazette.

Deepa S

Annexure-A20: A true copy of the letter bearing No.J/T20/SM/CLT/Leave 2 dated 21.11.2025 by the 4th respondent/5th respondent. Annexure-A21: A true copy of the standing Disability Assessment Board Certificate issued by the government District Hospital, Vadakara dated 29.11.2016. Annexure-A22: A true copy of the Unique Disability ID issued by the Government of India dated 13.02.2020. Annexure-A23: A true copy of the Identity Card No.011539 issued by the office of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Palakkad. Annexure-A24: A true copy of the Annual Transfer Circular ATM Directorate-2026, circular bearing No.AAI/CHQ/ATM/HRD/29-23/2026 dated 16.01.2026. Annexure R1(A)- True copy of the communication no. PC- VII/2023/HRMS/11 dt. 27.07.2023 Annexure R1(B)- True copy of the communication dt. 27.12.2025, No.J/T20/POA 607/2025 Annexure R1(C)- True copy of the letter dt. 24.10.2024, No.E(P&A)/1- 2019/CPC/LE-2 Annexure R1(D)- True copy of the communication dt. 05.01.2026 Annexure R(A)- True copy of the communication no. PC-VII/2023/HRMS/11 dt. 27.07.2023 Annexure R(B)- True copy of the communication dt. 27.12.2025

Deepa S

Annexure R(C)- True copy of the letter dt.24.10.2024 Annexure-A25: A true copy of charge memorandum bearing No. J/T.227/26/ CLT/RK/5 dated 02.07.2026 issued by the 4th respondent. Annexure-A26: A true copy of the representation dated 14.07.2026 submitted by the applicant. Annexure-A27: A true copy of the order bearing No. J/T.227/26/CLT/RK/5 dated 31.07.2026. Annexure-A28: A true copy of the order bearing No. J/T DAR ENQUIRY/RK/1 dated 12.08.2026. **********

Deepa S