PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has pulled up the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour (IPHB) for failing to adhere to the mandatory child care leave (CCL) policy while rejecting a six-month leave request made by an employee to support her “weak student” son during his Class XII board examination preparations in 2020-21.
However, the Court disposed of the petition as infructuous, observing that the purpose for which the leave was sought no longer survives.
In the order delivered on Thursday, the Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the petitioner’s grievance raised an issue of significance, namely the failure of a government authority to adhere to the CCL policy framed by the Department of Personnel.
The petition was filed by Valencio D’Souza after his wife, Millie Do Rosario, an assistant accounts officer at IPHB, was granted only 60 days of CCL against her request for 266 days during the Covid-19 pandemic, when their son was preparing for his Class 12 board examinations.
The court recorded that while the leave was partly sanctioned from October 19 to December 17, 2020, the request for extension was later refused. D’Souza subsequently approached the Goa Human Rights Commission, which had dismissed his complaint as well as a later review plea.
Examining the government circulars of February 20, 2013 and June 27, 2014, the High Court said the rules clearly required that any proposal to reject CCL must be placed before the Minister for Personnel for approval.
It further noted that the 2014 circular specifically provided that the minimum period of CCL granted to a female government employee should not be less than six months, subject to leave balance.
“Thus, it is clear that the Officer concerned failed to adhere to the CCL policy relevant at that point in time,” the court said.
In strong observations on the importance of the policy, the court said the legislation recognises the role of women in child care and family stability, and seeks to ensure that motherhood does not become a workplace disadvantage.
“Because of the non-adherence to the policy framed and circulated by the DoPT to all government offices concerned, the petitioner’s child was deprived of the support of his mother. Even if the department was understaffed and required the services of the petitioner, the director ought to have referred the request of the petitioner’s wife, with her own recommendation of refusal of the CCL as sought by the petitioner’s wife, to the concerned minister. The minister concerned would have taken the decision. To that extent, there was a lapse on the part of the official concerned in adhering to the terms of the policy,” reads the order.
However, since the academic year and examination period had long passed, the court said “nothing survives in the petition as on date” and disposed of the matter, while asking government officials to act in accordance with prevailing policy.
