Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Kavita Vadde vs Center For Development Of Advanced ... on 5 February, 2026
1
OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00582/2025
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Smt. Kavita Vadde,
W/o Sudhakar Katakam,
Aged about 45 years,
Working as Admin Officer,
Centre for Development of Advanced Computing,
No. 1, Old Madras Road,
Opposite HAL Aero Engine,
Bayappanahalli, Bangalore 560 038
Residing at No. T01, 33D,
Pashmina Waterfront, Battarahalli,
Bangalore 560 049 .... Applicant
(By Shri Satish K., Advocate)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology,
Electronica Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
2. The Executive Director,
Centre for Development of Advanced Computing,
No. 1, Old Madras Road,
Opposite HAL Aero Engine,
Bayappanahalli, Bangalore 560 038
kavya shree k
CAT Bangalore
kavya shree k
2026.02.06
14:12:34+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The Manager,
(Human Resource Department),
Centre for Development of Advanced Computing,
No. 1, Old Madras Road,
Opposite HAL Aero Engine,
Bayappanahalli, Bangalore 560 038.
4. The Manager (Admin),
Materials Management Group,
Centre for Development of Advanced Computing,
No. 1, Old Madras Road,
Opposite HAL Aero Engine,
Bayappanahalli, Bangalore 560 038 .... Respondents
(By Shri Vishnu Bhat, Senior Panel Counsel)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"I) Call for records from the respondents pertaining to the Child Care Leave application submitted by the applicant on 13.10.2025 (Annexure A5).
II) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant Child Care Leave for the period commencing from 16.12.2025 to 20.05.2026, in the interest of justice and equity.
III) Pass any other appropriate order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of this application."
kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
2. The facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant sought Child Care Leave for the purpose of providing academic and supervisory support to her minor son who is studying in the 10th standard and is appearing for the forthcoming Board Examinations. It is the grievance of the applicant that despite making repeated and timely representations through proper channel, furnishing complete academic schedules, the respondents failed to consider her request in its true statutory perspective and arbitrarily restricted the grant of Child Care Leave to a short and fragmented period of 18 days while rejecting the remaining period solely on the ground of administrative exigencies, manpower constraints and institutional events. The request of the applicant for re-consideration of the same has not fetched any positive response. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. Learned counsel Shri Satish K. appearing for the applicant would submit that the respondents, while acknowledging the applicant's eligibility and availability of sufficient leave balance, restricted the leave to a mere 18 days, thereby defeating the very purpose and intent of Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 ('Rules' for short). The rejection to grant the applicant's kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE request for Child Care Leave for the period requested is ex-facie contrary to the mandate of Rule 43-C of the Rules, which confers a statutory and beneficiary leave intended specifically to support working mothers in ensuring the welfare, academic development and emotional well-being of their minor children. The applicant has sought Child Care Leave in accordance with Rule 43-C of the Rules to give academic, psychological and emotional support to her younger son, who is presently studying in 10th standard and is preparing to appear for the forthcoming Board Examinations. On the basis of administrative inconvenience, staffing shortages, internal workload or institutional events, no statutory benefit could be denied. In his support, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following citations:
1) Kakali Ghosh vs. Chief Secretary, Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors. [(2014) 15 SCC 300)].
2) Ms. Anitha Joseph vs. NIMHANS and Others (OA No. 38/2023 dated 14.02.2024, Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench).
3) NIMHANS vs. Smt. S. Anitha Joseph (Writ Petition No. 11915/2024, dated 20.11.2024, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka).
kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3) Smt. Sophia B. vs. NIMHANS & Ors. (OA No. 121/2023, dated 01.01.2025, Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench).
4. Learned counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the respondents referring to the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondent organization has been expanding rapidly over the last five years and is engaged in projects of national importance. The applicant is entrusted with the responsibility of procurement related to national projects in the domains of Quantum Computing, National Supercomputing Mission, IoT Security, HPC Upskilling Public Key Infrastructure. In view of these compelling administrative and public service exigencies, which are currently ongoing like CAG audit, the applicant's request for Child Care Leave for a prolonged period of about 6 months could not be acceded to. Referring to Rules 7 (1) and 7 (2) of the Rules, learned counsel submitted that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and its grant is always subject to the exigencies of public service, however, after due consideration the competent authority granted Child Care Leave to the applicant for a period of 18 days coinciding with Phase-I of the CBSE Board examinations, thereby adequately addressing the applicant's kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE immediate requirement. Applicant has misinterpreted Rule 43-C of the Rules which is facilitative and discretionary, thus, justifying the action of the respondents, seeks for dismissal of the OA.
5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The applicant has sought Child Care Leave in order to support her younger son, Master Tejas Katakam to ensure success in his forthcoming 10th Board Examination scheduled to be held in two phases. Phase I examinations are scheduled from 17.02.2026 to 07.03.2026. Phase II examinations are tentatively scheduled in May- June, 2026. Respondents have granted Child Care Leave from 16.02.2026 to 07.03.2026 stating that several critical activities of the Centre are dependent on availability of appropriate manpower. There is also an impending retirement of key official during December, 2025. In spite of all the constraints, the request of the applicant has been considered to grant leave from 16.02.2026 to 07.03.2026. This period relates to Phase I examination. Phase II examination is equally important, which requires the constant care and guidance of the kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE mother, which has been totally lost sight of by the respondents. In Kakali Ghosh, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court, analysing the object and effect of Child Care Leave in the context of the authorities allowing Child Care Leave for 45 days against the request for two years, observed thus:
"13. 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 (10th/11th standard). It is not in dispute that the son was a 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."
7. In Ms. Anitha Joseph, supra, this Tribunal has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. C.R. Valsalakumari and another in OP (CAT) No. 340/2017, wherein, it is held thus:
"11. The answer to the present imbroglio would essentially depend upon the interpretation of Annexure-A4 (subsequently engrafted to Rule 43-C as it stood then) and Annexure-A5(a) clarification order. As in the case of grant of maternity benefit, CCL is also a beneficial provision to advance the interest of woman and children as envisaged in Article 15(3) of the kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Constitution. As referred to in the impugned order, CCL benefit has constitutional underpinnings in accord with Part-IV of the Constitution. The directive principle in Article 45 stipulates that the State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of 16 years. Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Woman (CEDAW), ratified by 189 countries including India, stipulates that the countries must take all appropriate measures to guarantee that woman and girls can enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms in every aspect of society. While Article 12 of the international convention guarantees equal access to Health Care and Family Planning for Woman, Article 16 inter alia guarantees equal rights for woman in their choice of marriage and any matter relating to birth, adoption and raising of children. Article 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) envisage that motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the need for special care and safe-guards for a child before, as well as, after birth and stipulates in Article 18(2) that the State shall render appropriate assistance to parents in the performance of their child-raring responsibilities. Further, Article 18(3) require the State to take all appropriate measures that children of working parents have the right to benefit from childcare services and facilities for which they are eligible. It is in assumption of the fundamental principles and obligations as referred above that Annexure-A4 order has been issued, which was later engrafted to Rule 43-C as it stood then. Needless to say that the beneficial provision in Rule 43-C is two dimensional, one from the perspective of the mother and the other, more importantly, of the child."
kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
8. In Smt. Sophia B, supra, this Tribunal observed thus:
"18. CCL Rules are enacted not only in recognition of the rights of a woman but more in recognition of the rights of a child. The primary purpose of such beneficial legislation is to ensure that the needs of the child are taken care. Such request of CCL has to be considered with humane approach and cannot be rejected on hyper- technicalities. Granting ten days of CCL vide OM dated 28.09.2021 retrospectively in response to the leave application dated 01.08.2021 claiming leave for the period 02.08.2021 to 05.11.2021 would not resolve the hardship pleaded by the applicant,............."
9. In Writ Petition No. 11915/2024, supra, while upholding the order passed by this Tribunal in Smt. S. Anitha Joseph, supra, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has referred to Section 3 (ix) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which enacts the principle of paramount interest of the child and the same reads as under:
"All decisions regarding the child shall be based on the primary consideration, that they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop full potential."
Further, Article 3 (1) of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 has been referred, which provides thus:
"... in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, court of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration..."
kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
10. Rule 43-C reads thus:
"43-C. Child Care Leave. -
(1) Subject to the provisions of this rule, a female Government servant and single male Government servant may be granted child care leave by an authority competent to grant leave for a maximum period of seven hundred and thirty days during entire service for taking care of two eldest surviving children, whether for rearing or for looking after any of their needs, such as education, sickness and the like.
(2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), "child" means -
(a) a child below the age of eighteen years; or
(b) an offspring of any age with a minimum disability of forty per cent as specified in the Government of India in Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment's Notification No. 16-18/97-N1.1, dated the 1st June, 2001.
(3) Grant of child care leave to a female Government servant and a single male Government servant under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) It shall not be granted for more than three spells in a calendar year;
(ii) In case of a single female Government servant, the grant of leave in three spells in a calendar year shall be extended to six spells in a calendar year.
(iii) It shall not ordinarily be granted during the probation period except in case of certain extreme situations where the leave sanctioning authority is satisfied about the need of child care leave to the probationer, provided that the period for which such leave is sanctioned is minimal.
(iv) Child care leave may not be granted for a period less than five days at a time.
kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE (4) During the period of child care leave, a female Government servant and a single male Government servant shall be paid one hundred percent of the salary for the first three hundred and sixty-five days, and at eighty percent of the salary for the next three hundred and sixty-five days.
EXPLANATION-Single Male Government servant means - an unmarried or widower or divorcee Government servant."
11. Child Care Leave Rules under 43-C have been enacted not only in recognition of the rights of a female/single male government servant but more in recognition of the rights of a child to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy constitutionally enacted in Articles 42 and 21 for rearing or for looking after the needs of the children, such as education, sickness and the like. Education plays a vital role in children's development and it is an essential need of a child. Board Examinations, particularly for Classes 10 and 12, are widely recognized as a major base source with intense competition for the life/career success which would create stress, anxiety and pressure on students. Family support system i.e., availability of emotional presence to listen to the fears and anxieties, providing immediate solutions, creating positive reinforcement atmosphere with encouraging words to boost the confidence, reducing distractions and stress management i.e., overall creating steady environment with strategic planning, providing an atmosphere for kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE maintaining good health is necessary for the students in the modern competitive examinations, the results of which would be the roadmap of their life. Seeking Child Care Leave in this direction by the applicant - mother cannot be held to be frivolous.
12. The reasons of shortage of staff/manpower in the organization is wholly untenable having regard to the object and purport of the Child Care Leave provision and the development of the child. Designing robust optimised cadre structure and implementing the systematic recruitment policy are essential for employers to ensure compliance with statutory leave provisions such as Child Care Leave, a beneficial legislation entailing female/single male government servant to avail the same in the interest of the child. No beneficial legislation could be denied with such unjustifiable reasons of shortage of staff/retirement of employees. Restricting the request to 18 days only relating to Ist Phase of the examination is not appreciable when the examination is in two phases. It is not in dispute that the applicant is eligible and entitled to Child Care Leave. Though discretion vests with the employer, such legal claim, having regard to the particulars furnished by the applicant inasmuch as the child studying in 10th standard and the examination scheduled of the kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Board Examinations, humane approach is required. A welfare oriented statutory provision cannot be converted into a discretionary privilege. Administrative exigencies and manpower constraints cannot override or curtail a statutory right. Child Care Leave is intended to be granted in a liberal and pragmatic manner, keeping in mind the best interest of the child, especially during Board Examinations. DOPT OMs issued with reference to Child Care Leave also supports the same. As the exams are approaching, at least from 06.02.2026 the applicant's Child Care Leave can be granted as the events referred in the reply e-mail to the applicant's representation are already concluded.
13. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 21506/2017 (DD: 10.10.2017) (Dr. Kanchan Bala vs. State of Haryana and Others), wherein the Hon'ble High Court considering the denial of Child Care Leave to the petitioner therein, on the ground that there were insufficient number of Medical Specialists available in the ESI Hospital at Jagadhari with only one other Medical Specialist available other than the petitioner held as thus:
kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "Hence, even though Rule 46 of the Haryana Civil Services (Leaves), 2016, stipulates in sub-rule 2 thereof that child care leave shall not be demanded as a matter of right and no one can, under any circumstances, proceed on child care leave without prior sanction and further, sub-rule 11 stipulates that child care leave would not be granted if it disrupts the functioning of offices/institutions/schools etc., the Government, in my opinion, the Govt. cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own fault, to deny a right which has been statutorily recognized by it, and correctly recognized, seeing the future of children who would make future doctors/engineers/bureaucrats etc. of the country.
The petitioners' daughter is stated to be studying in Class 12 (10+2), which is undoubtedly a very crucial year as regards the academics of a school going child, upon which admission to future professional courses etc. depends. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the stand taken by the respondents, in the circumstances enumerated herein above, is wholly irrational and cannot be accepted."
This judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
14. For the reasons aforesaid, the applicant is entitled to Child Care Leave from 06.02.2026 to 20.05.2026. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant Child Care Leave to the applicant for the period commencing from 06.02.2026 to 20.05.2026, modifying the order dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure A9). Compliance shall be made forthwith.
kavya shree k CAT Bangalore kavya shree k 2026.02.06 14:12:34+05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00582/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
15. OA stands disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/
kavya shree k
CAT Bangalore
kavya shree k
2026.02.06
14:12:34+05'30'