Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
B Anitha vs Labour And Employment (Ms) on 7 September, 2021
OA/553/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/021/553/2021
HYDERABAD, this the 7th day of September, 2021
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member
B. Anitha, D/o B. Lakshma Reddy, aged 33 years,
Occ. Multi-Tasking Staff(MTS), Gr.C.,
Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Dispensary,
Sircilla, Karimnagar District, T.S.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. K R K V Prasad)
Vs.
1. The Union of India Rep.\
The Director General (Labour Welfare),
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Jaisalmer House, Mansingh Road,
New Delhi- 110 011..
2. The Welfare Commissioner,
Labour Welfare Organization,
Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar,
Hyderabad- 500 095.
3. The Medical Officer,
BWWF Dispensary,
Sircilla, Karimnagar Dt.,
Telangana State.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. A Vijaya Bhaskar Babu, Addl. CGSC)
---
Page 1 of 4
OA/553/2021
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member) Through Video Conferencing:
This original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"The applicant humbly prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the application for Child Care Leave submitted by the Applicant which was forwarded by the 3 rd respondent vide letter dated 08.06.2021 and declare the inaction in the matter of sanction of the said leave by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary; and direct the 2nd respondent to permit the applicant to avail the Child Care Leave from 06.09.2021 to 25.06.2022 along with extension of leave, if any, within the permissible limit and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The applicant has applied for Child Care Leave(CCL) which is not sanctioned by the respondents, according to the applicant ,and she has approached this Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Multi-Tasking Staff(MTS)(Aya) on 24.10.2010 under the control of respondent No.2, the Welfare Commissioner. The applicant's husband is also working in the respondent organization as a Driver and posted at a distance of 400 KM away from the place of working of the applicant. The applicant has two daughters. On 08.06.2021, the applicant applied for Child Care Leave for 293 days i.e. from 06.09.2021 to 25.06.2022. The applicant has availed CCL for 293 days in the last one year i.e. from 06.07.2020 to 24.04.2021 to look after the needs of the 2nd minor daughter. The applicant applied for a request transfer to join her husband on spouse account which was also not considered by the respondents. Page 2 of 4
OA/553/2021
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant's husband who is working in the same department is posted far away and she has to take care of elderly father-in-law and minor children, particularly the girl child. So, she is finding it difficult and applied for CCL and thereafter, she has approached this Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. A Vijaya Bhaskar Babu has filed instructions obtained from the department which are reproduced below:
" This is to inform you that the applicant of the OA No. 553/2021 had applied for Child Care Leave(CCL) for the period from 06.09.2021 to 25.06.2022(293). The said application has already been disposed of vide Leave Santion Order No.5(358)/A1/2013-5904 dated 25.08.2021(Copy enclosed) and the leave has been restricted to 30 days in view of the work and administrative exigencies of the region and its dispensaries in the time of Corona pandemic which has hugely increased the need for basic medical facilities. It is also important to mention here that the Applicant has already availed CCL for 293 days in the laast one year i.e. from 06.07.2020 to 24.04.2021 and it is not administratively possible for the department to sanction around 2 years of leave to one employee almost continuously while not being able to take care of the leave requirements of other employees.
Most importantly, the present OA No. 553/2021 deserves to be dismissed since it has been filed without arising of any cause of action as the leave application has been duly disposed of before the date of leave applied for. In this regard, it is stated that as per the leave rules of Central Government i.e. Rule 7(1), "Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right" and the Rule 7(2) states that the leave sanctioning authority may refuse or revoke leave of any kind> It is requested to kindly apprise the Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad of the above facts and get the OA dismissed at the admission stage itself."
6. Heard the counsels for the parties at length. We have considered the facts and circumstances, law points and rival contentions in the case.
7. The short issue before this Tribunal posed by the applicant is that she has been suffering because her husband is posted far away. Fortunately, her husband is also working in the same department. It is up to the management Page 3 of 4 OA/553/2021 to see who is required where. And, if possible, the applicant's husband may be considered for posting at the present place of applicant herein so that this CCL problem will come to an end. It is further submitted by the respondent's counsel that the department has granted 30 days leave and the applicant and has unnecessarily approached this Tribunal for redressal of her grievances.
8. After considering the facts of the case, we are of this view that the applicant has special circumstances. If she needs leave, department may consider it in short spells and accommodate her because the purpose of CCL is to enable employees to take care of their children. The applicant's counsel has relied upon the case of Kakali Ghosh vs Chief Secy. A & N Administration & Ors. in CA No. 4506 OF 2014(arising out of SLP (C) No. 33244 of 2012).
9. In view of this, we are of the view that the department is supposed to accommodate her but at the same time applicant may also not press for longer leave. Instead she may avail it in short spells.
10. With this observation, the OA is disposed of without any order as to costs.
(B.V. SUDHAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
/Ram/
Page 4 of 4