Renaissance Das v. The Manager And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/454/2024 Renaissance Das Vs The Manager and others Mr. Ananda Halder ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent nos.1,2&3 Sept.02, 2024 [SR] Item No.5 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate is granted leave to file the vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 in the department in course of the day.
The petitioner is a Graduate Trained Teacher and is posted at Nirmala Senior Secondary School, Prem Nagar, which is an aided minority educational institution.
The petitioner says that her service is governed by the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. This contention is, however, disputed by the respondents-school on the ground that the school in question, being a minority aided school, has its own rules governing service of the teachers.
The petitioner had applied for maternity leave on 27th March, 2024 and was sanctioned leave for 145 days with effect from 26th March, 2024 to 17th August, 2024. The petitioner, on 29th March, 2024, gave birth to a female child, who is suffering from Umbilical Hernia and is as such totally depending on the petitioner for her regular care.
The petitioner, on 10th July, 2024, applied for a Child Care Leave (in short 'CCL') of two months between 17th August, 2024 and 16th October, 2024. The petitioner says that, though the application
was made before the maternity leave already sanctioned was to be exhausted, the respondents did not sanction such leave on the ground that there is shortage of teacher in the subject taught by the petitioner. This communication was dated 29th July, 2024. The petitioner again made a representation dated 2nd August, 2024 to reconsider her prayer. This representation was disposed of by refusing CCL to the petitioner by an electronic mail dated 10th August, 2024. The petitioner made yet another representation on 12th August, 2024 to reconsider her prayer for CCL of two months, which was followed by another reminder dated 20th August, 2024.
In the meantime, by a communication dated 20th August, 2024, the petitioner was asked to resume duty at the earliest as her leave period had exhausted on 18th August, 2024 and the petitioner did not join the school on 19th August, 2024. The petitioner says that she is entitled to a CCL which is approved in law. Only because of illness of her child, the medical prescription and supporting documents whereof have been supplied to the respondent-school along with her representation, the petitioner has sought for CCL of two months.
Although, mandatory direction cannot be given in a case like that in hand commanding the respondents-school to grant CCL yet, when such leave is legally accredited, the same cannot be denied for shortage of teachers.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no.1 to reconsider the petitioner's application for CCL of two months in a sympathetic manner taking into consideration all relevant facts. The Manager (respondent no.1), if necessary, call the petitioner for a personal hearing and allow her to produce the medical documents and
prescription of the child. If the leave is ultimately sanctioned, then, the same should be from 19.08.2024 for a period of two months, as prayed for by the petitioner.
It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter and the Manager (respondent no.1) should decide the issue independently and without being influenced in any manner by any observation made in this order.
The respondent no.1 is directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation within a period of fortnight from date by assigning proper reasons, if he decides to reject the petitioner's prayer for CCL. The reasoned order should be communicated to the petitioner immediately.
Since the petitioner's representation is directed to be considered, the respondent shall not take any coercive measure against the petitioner for her absence from 19.08.2024 and permit her to apply for any other leave as may be available in law for any absence from 19.08.2024 in the event the respondent no.1 decides to refuse the petitioner's prayer for CCL.
Nothing further remains for adjudication in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, disposed of.
Since I have not called for any affidavits, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents.
( Arindam Mukherjee, J. )