IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.

Similar documents
OFFICE MEMORANDUM. 2. These orders shall take effect from 1st September, 2008.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR C.S.T.A. NO.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.91 of 2017

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF Versus. The State of Bihar & Ors. Etc...

CWP No of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. versus

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.958 OF Prem Nath Bali Appellant(s) VERSUS J U D G M E N T

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3198 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No of 2017) VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

LEAVE RULES FOR WORKERS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No. 7 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014] Versus

2011-TIOL-443-HC-MAD-CUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. C.M.A.No.3727 of 2004, W.P of 2011 and W.P of 1998 and CMP.No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.2015 OF 2007 VERSUS J U D G M E N T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX MATTER. Date of decision : November 28, 2007 ITA 348/2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 794 of 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF Food Corporation of India.Appellant(s) VERSUS

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF Versus. M/s Garg Sons International.

it has been received or not. We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant herein. She has brought t

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Judgment reserved on: Judgment pronounced on:

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 32 & 50 of 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 176 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Mool Singh And Anr. on 7 December, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF (Arising out S.L.P. (C) NO OF 2007) Versus

Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi. OA No.2822/2016. Hon ble Ms. Praveen Mahajan, Member (A) VERSUS

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 327 of 2018

Whether employer /establishment can reduce the basic wages/salary for the purpose of deduction of provident

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Original Side) I.T.A. No.264 of 2003

2011 NTN 46)-10 [IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW. Original Application No. 06 of 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2017 VINOD VERMA APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.1381 OF Chennai Port Trust.Appellant(s) VERSUS

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income-tax) (Original Side) I.T.A. No.219 of 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.5282/2012 DATE OF DECISION : 2nd July, 2013

VERSUS M/S. BHAGAT CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD... Respondent. VERSUS M/S. M.R.G. PLASTIC TECHNOLOGIES AND ORS... Respondent

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) No of 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2017 VERSUS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9365 OF 2017 VERSUS WITH

At the time of Sec. 80G approval object of trust needs to be examined without considering application of income

$~23. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7131/2015 % Judgment dated 29 th July, versus

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : FINANCE ACT, 1994 Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 4456/2012 & C.M.No.9237/2012( for stay)

No /2/2018-Estt.(C) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. LPA No.101/2010 and LPA No.461/2010 & CM Appl. Nos /2010. Date of Hearing:

Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi. OA No.571/2017

Credit allowed on capital goods use to manufacture exempted intermediate product as duty was paid on final product

THE INDIAN JURIST

the income was received from letting out of the properties, it was in the nature of rental income. He, thus, held that it would be treated as income f

Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Punjab Chemical & Crop Protection Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos of 2018)

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CUSAA 4/2013. Versus

THE LEAVE RULES, 1934 (updated with different amendments and corrections) (FOR INFORMATION ONLY)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.4380 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.

Additional Pension on the basis of Contribution over and above Wage Limit of either Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- per Month.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.360 of 2016 (Arising from the SLP(Civil) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION AHALYA A. SAMTANEY.APPELLANT. Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ITA NO.530/2011. Reserved on : 28th November, 2011.

INDIAN RAILWAYS TECHNICAL SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION (Estd. 1965, Regd. No.1329, Website )

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF Tapan Kumar Dutta...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8732/2015

G.A no.1150 of 2015 ITAT no.52 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE

Frequently asked questions on CCS (Leaves Rules)

News Letter. II-Issue for the month of August Malad (West), Mumbai Contacts: Tele Fax:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 830 OF 2018 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.

Sathiyabama And Ors. vs M. Palanisamy And Ors. on 20 October, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No of 2018) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2005 SRI S.N. WADIYAR (DEAD) THROUGH LR W I T H

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO.

In this petition short point is involved which is. with respect to the petitioner s right to get the benefit of

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) /2018 (Special Leave Petition (C) No(s).

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur Respondent

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL

Amendment to CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 Notification regarding

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through: Mr Ajay Verma, Adv. Through: Mr R.K. Saini, Adv with Mr Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Adv. AND LPA 709/2012.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, RAJKOT VERSUS

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE APPEAL No. 72/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT R A N C H I ---- Tax Appeal No. 04 of I.T.O., Ward NO.1, Ranchi. Appellant. Versus

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF 2004

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).9310/2017 (Arising from Special Leave Petition(s)No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3 OF 2013 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 485 of 2018

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 969/2014

SUB: Important Amendment Proposed to the ESI (Central) Rules, 1950.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.683 OF 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR AND THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 2331/2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.2530 OF Birla Institute of Technology.Appellant(s) VERSUS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD. Judgment reserved on Judgment delivered on Income Tax Appeal No.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus PRABHU DAYAL AND BROTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

Transcription:

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTABLE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4506 OF 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 33244 of 2012) KAKALI GHOSH APPELLANT VERSUS CHIEF SECRETARY, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 18 th September, 2012 passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment and order dated 30 th April, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal ). 3. The only question which requires to be determined in this appeal is whether a woman employee of the Central Government Page 1

2 can ask for uninterrupted 730 days of Child Care Leave (hereinafter referred to as, - the CCL ) under Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, the Rules ). 4. The appellant initially applied for CCL for six months commencing from 5 th July, 2011 by her letter dated 16 th May, 2011 to take care of her son who was in 10th standard. In her application, she intimated that she is the only person to look after her minor son and her mother is a heart patient and has not recovered from the shock due to the sudden demise of her father; her father-in-law is almost bed ridden and in such circumstances, she was not in a position to perform her duties effectively. While her application was pending, she was transferred to Campbell Bay in Nicobar District (Andaman and Nicobar) where she joined on 06 th July, 2011. By her subsequent letter dated 14 th February, 2012 she requested the competent authority to allow her to avail CCL for two years commencing from 21 st May, 2012. However, the authorities allowed only 45 days of CCL by their Office Order No. 254 dated 16 th March, 2012. 5. Aggrieved appellant then moved before the Tribunal in O.A. No.47/A&N/2012 which allowed the application by order dated 30 th April, 2012 with following observation:- Page 2

3 12. Thus O.A. is allowed. Respondents are accordingly directed to act strictly in accordance with DOPT O.M. dated 11.9.2008 as amended/clarified on 29.9.2008 and 18.11.2008, granting her CCL for the due period. No costs. 6. The order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by respondents before the Calcutta High Court which by impugned judgment and order dated 18 th September, 2012 while observing that leave cannot be claimed as a right, held as follows: It is evident from the provisions of sub r.(3) of r.43-c of the rules that CCL can be granted only according to the conditions mentioned in the sub-rule, and that one of the conditions is that CCL shall not be granted for more than three spells in a calendar year. It means that CCL is not to be granted for a continuous period, but only in spells. From the provisions of sub r.(3) of r.43-c of the rules it is also evident that a spell of CCL can be for as less as 16 days. This means that in a given case a person, though eligible to take CCL for a maximum period of 730 days, can be granted CCL in three spells in a calendar year for as less as 48 days. The High Court further observed: Whether an eligible person should be granted CCL at all, and, if so, for what period, are questions to be decided by the competent authority; for the person is to work in the interest of public service, and ignoring public service exigencies that must prevail over private exigencies no leave can be granted. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no bar to grant uninterrupted 730 days of CCL under Rule 43-C. The High Court was not justified in holding that CCL can be granted in Page 3

4 three spells in a calendar year as less as 48 days at a time. It was also contended that the respondents failed to record ground to deny uninterrupted CCL to appellant for the rest of the period. 8. Per contra, according to respondents, Rule 43-C does not permit uninterrupted CCL for 730 days as held by the High Court. 9. Before we proceed to discuss the merits or otherwise of the above contentions, it will be necessary for us to refer the relevant Rule and the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time. 10. The Government of India from its Department of Personnel and Training vide O.M. No. 13018/2/2008-Estt. (L) dated 11 th September, 2008 intimated that CCL can be granted for maximum period of 730 days during the entire service period to a woman government employee for taking care of up to two children, relevant portion of which reads as follows: (1) Child Care Leave for 730 days. *** Women employees having minor children may be granted Child Care Leave by an authority competent to grant leave, for a maximum period of two years (i.e. 730 days) during their entire service for taking care of up to two children, whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness, etc. Child Care Leave shall not be admissible if the child is eighteen years of age or older. During the period of such leave, the women employees shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. It may be availed of in more than one spell. Child Care Leave shall not Page 4

5 be debited against the leave account. Child Care Leave may also be allowed for the third year as leave not due (without production of medical certificate). It may be combined with leave of the kind due and admissible. 11. It was followed by Circular issued by Government of India from its Personnel and Training Department vide O.M. No. 13018/2/2008- Estt. (L), dated 29 th September, 2008 by which it was clarified that CCL would be also admissible to a woman government employee to look after third child below 18 years of age, which is as follows: (2) Clarifications:- The question as to whether child care leave would be admissible for the third child below the age of 18 years and the procedure for grant of child care leave have been under consideration in this Department, and it has now been decided as follows:- (i) Child Care Leave shall be admissible for two eldest surviving children only. (ii) The leave account for child care leave shall be maintained in the pro forma enclosed, and it shall be kept along with the Service Book of the Government Servant concerned. 12. Rule 43-C was subsequently inserted by Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, Notification No. F.No. 11012/1/2009-Estt. (L) dated 1 st December, 2009, published in G.S.R. No. 170 in the Gazette of India dated 5 th December, 2009 giving effect from 1 st September, 2008 as quoted below:- 43-C. Child Care Leave Page 5

(1)A women Government servant having minor children below the age of eighteen years and who has no earned leave at her credit, may be granted child care leave by an authority competent to grant leave, for a maximum period of two years, i.e. 730 days during the entire service for taking care of up to two children, whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness, etc. (2)During the period of child care leave, she shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. (3)Child care leave may be combined with leave of any other kind. 6 Page 6

7 (4)Notwithstanding the requirement of production of medical certificate contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 or sub-rule (1) of Rule 31, leave of the kind due and admissible (including commuted leave not exceeding 60 days and leave not due) up to a maximum of one year, if applied for, be granted in continuation with child care leave granted under sub-rule (1). (5)Child care leave may be availed of in more than one spell. (6)Child care leave shall not be debited against the leave account. 13. On perusal of circulars and Rule 43-C, it is apparent that a woman government employee having minor children below 18 years can avail CCL for maximum period of 730 days i.e. during the entire service period for taking care of upto two children. The care of children is not for rearing the smaller child but also to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness etc. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 43-C allows woman government employee to combine CCL with leave of any other kind. Under Sub Rule (4) of Rule 43-C leave of the kind due and admissible to woman government employee including commuted leave not exceeding 60 days; leave not due up to a maximum of one year, can be applied for and granted in continuation with CCL granted under Sub Rule (1). From plain reading of Sub Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 43-C it is clear that CCL even beyond 730 days can be granted by combining other leave if due. The finding of the High Court is based neither on Rule 43-C nor on guidelines issued by the Central Government. Page 7

8 The Tribunal was correct in directing the respondents to act strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India and Rule 43-C. 14. In the present case, the appellant claimed for 730 days of CCL at a stretch to ensure success of her son in the forthcoming secondary/senior examinations (10 th /11 th standard). It is not in dispute that son was minor below 18 years of age when she applied for CCL. This is apparent from the fact that the competent authority allowed 45 days of CCL in favour of the appellant. However, no reason has been shown by the competent authority for disallowing rest of the period of leave. 15. Leave cannot be claimed as of right as per Rule 7, which reads as follows: 7. Right to leave (1) Leave cannot be claimed as of right. (2) When the exigencies of public service so require, leave of any kind may be refused or revoked by the authority competent to grant it, but it shall not be open to that authority to alter the kind of leave due and applied for except at the written request of the Government servant. However, under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 leave can be refused or revoked by the competent authority in the case of exigencies of public service. Page 8

9 16. In fact, Government of India from its Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel and Training all the time encourage the government employees to take leave regularly, preferably annually by its Circular issued by the Government of India M.H.A.O.M. No. 6/51/60-Ests. (A), dated 25 th January, 1961, reiterated vide Government of India letter dated 22/27 th March, 2001. As per those circulars where all applications for leave cannot, in the interest of public service, be granted at the same time, the leave sanctioning authority may draw up phased programme for the grant of leave to the applicants by turn with due regard to the principles enunciated under the aforesaid circulars. 17. In the present case the respondents have not shown any reason to refuse 730 days continuous leave. The grounds taken by them and as held by High Court cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned above. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 18 th September, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair and affirm the judgment and order dated 30 th April, 2012 passed by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to comply with Page 9

the directions issued by the Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt/production of this judgment. 10 19. The appeal is allowed with aforesaid directions. No costs..j. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) NEW DELHI, APRIL 15, 2014..J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) Page 10