Luxmi v. State Of Haryana And ORS

CWP No.31214 of 2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.121 CWP No.31214 of 2024 Date of Decision: 26.11.2024 Luxmi

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith allow the Child Care Leave (CCL) to the petitioner with effect from 16.09.2024 to 13.12.2024, by accepting her application dated 13.09.2024.

2.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, contends that due to Model Code of Conduct being in force and certain objections having been raised on the petitioner's CCL application as per communication, dated 01.10.2024, it could not be considered. She further contends that the petitioner proceeded on CCL from 16.09.2024 without it having been sanctioned by the Department, and has not joined back. This is a misconduct on her part. The objections to her CCL were, though she applied for it from 16.09.2024, the application was received in the office of Block Education Officer only on 30.09.2024. Secondly, PAYAL 2024.11.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.31214 of 2024 -2consent letter of the employee, who gave consent to teach in the petitioner's absence by signing in column 17 of CCL application form, had not been attached.

3.

Apparently, both the objections are not sustainable. In case the application has been received late in the office, the petitioner cannot be blamed for that since she submitted it through proper channel to the School Principal, and it was to be sent to the Block Education officer by the Principal only. Nonsubmission of a consent letter by the concerned employee can also not be blamed on the petitioner, as it was for the Principal to get the consent letter, if required.

4.

Faced with the situation, learned State counsel contends that appropriate decision on the petitioner's application will be taken within two weeks.

5.

In view of the statement made, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms thereof. 6.

Ordered accordingly.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 26.11.2024 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2024.11.29 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document