REKHA DEVI vs SOCIAL WELFARE on 4 November 2026

O R D E R

Per:- Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member

The applicant has filed this Original Application (in short O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, wherein, the applicant is aggrieved of action/decision of the respondents whereby, her request for continuation of Child Care Leave (in short CCL) beyond 30.06.2026 has been restricted with a direction to resume her duties. The applicant has also sought a direction to respondents to grant/allow the applicant CCL for a period from 01.10.2026 to 30.03.2027, as per Rule 41-A of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979 (in short Rules of 1979) for educational and child care requirements of her son or in the alternative, direct the respondents to reconsider the application of the applicant dated 20.05.2026 for continuation of CCL from October 2026 to March 2027.

2. It is the case of the applicant that she has sought CCL for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.04.2026 to 31.07.2027, in order to attend to and support her minor son, in connection with Class-XII Board Examination and further educational requirements. That Respondent No. 4 forwarded the request of the applicant to the Respondent No. 2 on 03.03.2026 for sanctioning the CCL for a period of one month and the applicant was permitted to avail CCL for the initial period of 61 days. That during the subsistence of the CCL, the applicant submitted an application seeking continuation of CCL, for catering to the continuous educational and child care requirements of her minor son,

ARUN KUMAR

:: 3 :: O.A. No. 61/1339/2026

who got admitted in Ramjas College, University of Delhi for undergoing B.Sc. (Hons.) Physics on 03.08.2026.

3. It is the grievance of the applicant that instead of considering the request of the applicant for continuance of CCL in its entirety, the respondents have permitted CCL only upto 30.06.2026 asking her to resume duty thereafter. Finally, it has been prayed that this O.A. be allowed with a direction to respondents to pass a speaking order within a time bound period, for claim of the applicant for CCL for the period from 01.10.2026 to 31.03.2027. In support of her contentions, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following citations:- i. Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya Vs. state of UP and others decided on 29.05.2017 ii. Dr. Sonakshi Gupta and others vs. UT of J&K and others decided on 10.07.2026 iii. Sonia Gandhi & Ors Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and ors decided on 06.11.2013. iv. Smt. Deepa Choudhary (Ahirwar) Vs. M.P. Power Transmission Company decided on 19.03.2024. v. Ayesha Sheikh Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 04.08.2026. vi. O.A. No. 1013 of 2019 titled Jagjeet Kour Vs. UOI decided on 09.12.2019 of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal

4. The respondents have filed reply and submitted that applicant being an adhoc employee is not entitled for CCL, in as much as, her services have not been regularized to the post of Conductress.

5. Heard and considered.

6. The short controversy, which is the subject matter of this O.A., is whether, applicant being an adhoc employee is entitled for CCL for the period from 01.10.2026 to 31.03.2027.

ARUN KUMAR

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 61/1339/2026

7. It is submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that this Tribunal vide order dated 25.08.2025 in T.A. No. 61/7000/2020 has quashed the Government Order No. 225 SW of 2017 dated 19.07.2017, whereby the claim of the applicant for her regularization was rejected. The said order of this Tribunal, as per learned Sr. Counsel, has been assailed by the respondents in a Writ Petition titled UT Of J&K Vs. Smt Rekha Devi, which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu& Kashmir and Ladakh for adjudication.

8. The contention of the respondent on the other hand is that the applicant is not a regular Government Employee and therefore, her claim for CCL is not governed by the applicable service rules.

9. The purpose of Rule 41-A introduced in terms of SRO 242 vide notification dated 22.07.2015 is that a woman employee, may be granted CCL by an authority competent to grant leave for a maximum period of 730 days during her entire service for taking care of two eldest children, below the age of 18 years, whether for rearing or looking after any of their needs such as education, sickness and the like. However, CCL cannot be claimed as a matter of right and an employee can proceed on CCL only with the prior proper approval of the leave sanctioning authority.

10. In the case in hand, the applicant has not placed on record any order with regard to grant of 61 days CCL, earlier by the approval of the competent authority.

ARUN KUMAR

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 61/1339/2026

11. The issue regarding Child Care Leave/ admissibility of CCL to contractual employee has been dealt by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya (supra) and also by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Deepa Choudhary (supra) and Aisha Sheikh (supra), besides by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in Jagjeet Kour (supra) case. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid citations, it is apparent that all the female employees irrespective of nature of employment i.e. permanent, temporary, adhoc or contractual are entitled for CCL. Thus the, issue raised herein by the applicant is covered by the view taken in the aforesaid judgements of Hon’ble High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh and Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal, observing that government orders providing for Child Care Leave is applicable to all female employees, whether temporary, ad-hoc or contractual.

12. In view of the discussions made above, the entitlement of the applicant for grant of CCL cannot be doubted and she cannot be denied CCL only on the ground that she is an adhoc/temporary employee.

13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this O.A. is disposed of with following directions:-

(i) The respondents are directed to consider and decide the claim of the applicant for CCL, for the period from 01.10.2026 to 31.03.2027, in the light of observations made above, if 31.03.2027 is prior to the date of attaining

ARUN KUMAR

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 61/1339/2026

majority by the child, otherwise till the date he is below 18 years of age.

(ii) The said application shall not be rejected on the ground that applicant is an adhoc/temporary employee.

14. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

15. Disposed of.

16. No order as to costs.

(Pragya Sahay Saksena)

(Sanjeev Gupta) Administrative Member

Judicial Member Arun…

ARUN KUMAR