Bengaluru: An employer does not have the power to decide whether the reasons given by an employee for seeking child care leave (CCL) are sufficient, the high court has said.“No discretion is conferred upon the employer or the competent authority to adjudicate upon the sufficiency of the reasons assigned for seeking CCL,” the court noted.
The division bench of Justices SG Pandit and KV Aravind also said in the absence of such power, restricting the leave period requested by the employee was not allowed.The court was hearing a petition filed by the ministry of electronics and the Centre for Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Bengaluru, challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).Kavita Vadde, an administrative officer at C-DAC, had applied for CCL from Dec 16, 2025, to May 20, 2026. She wanted to help her son prepare for his 10th standard board examinations. However, she was granted only 18 days of CCL — from Feb 6 to March 7, 2026 — based on the examination schedule.Kavita then approached the CAT in Bengaluru. On Feb 5, the tribunal ruled in her favour and directed the authorities to grant CCL from Feb 6 till May 20, as per the rules.The ministry of electronics challenged this order before the high court. It argued that granting leave beyond the period strictly required for the stated purpose would affect the functioning of the department and “would also defeat the very object of sanctioning such leave.”Appearing for Kavita, advocate K Satish submitted that the board examinations were held in two stages. He said the leave period requested covered the pre-board exams, the first stage of the main exams, and the second stage. He also argued that “the determination of the period for which leave is required lies within the discretion of the respondent-employee.”After examining Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, the HC noted that a female govt servant or a single male govt servant can seek CCL when the child requires their presence, including for education, illness, or similar reasons.Citing the judgment of the high court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (Nimhans) vs Smt S Anitha Joseph, a case based on similar facts and circumstances, the division bench held that there was no error in the order passed by the tribunal.
