Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Vimlesh Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 8 February, 2017
WP-4837-2016
(SMT. VIMLESH VERMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
08-02-2017
Shri Chetan Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.Ami Prabal, learned Dy.Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
The petitioner, a senior teacher in M.L.B. Girls Higher Secondary School, Morar, Gwalior, has approached this court with the grievance that her child care leave application has been arbitrarily rejected by the impugned communication dt.04.03.2016 (Annexure P/1) without any authority of law, by the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for child care leave on 19.01.2016 as her elder son was to appear in the 10th Board Examination of the academic session 2016 in terms of the notification dt.22.08.2015 issued by the Finance Department, wherein it is provided that under Rule 38 (C) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1977), provision of leave for child care has been made for female employees.
On notice, respondents have entered appearance and sought to justify rejection order of child care leave application on the premise that in the light of the communication of the State Government dt.06.08.2016 (Annexure R/1), the petitioner is not entitled for child care leave. No other ground for justifying the rejection order of the application has been laid in the counter affidavit.
Shri Chetan Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counter affidavit filed by the respondents speaks of total non- application of mind as the impugned rejection order, though, is dated 4.3.2016 but the same is sought to be justified on the basis of document dt.06.08.2016 (Annnexure R/1), which is a posted dated document. Such course of justification by no stretch of imagination can be countenanced, therefore, deserves to be rejected outrightely.
Per contra, Ms.Ami Prabal, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondents/State submits that the petitioner being a member of Adhyapak Samvarg and Panchayat employee, is not entitled for the aforesaid leave under the Rules of 1977. However, she has not been able to point out such exclusion in the rules. More over, under Rule 8 Note (b) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008, it is provided that leave rules applicable to the employees of the State Government are applicable to the Adhyapak Samvarg as well. For ready reference, the relevant rule is quoted below :-
"(b) A person employed or merged under these rules shall be entitled for leave similar as regular teachers in School Education Department."
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the impugned communication of rejection of child care leave dt.04.03.2016 (Annexure P/1) is bad in law having been passed allegedly on the strength of the post dated communication dt.06.08.2016 (Annexure R/1) and the contention that the leave rules are not applicable also worth rejection in view of the aforesaid rules.
Hence, the writ petition stands allowed. Impugned communication dt.04.03.2016 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and the petitioner is held to be entitled for child care leave in terms of Clause (c) of Rule 38 of the Rules of 1977. It need no mention that if her salary has not been paid for the period during which she was on child care leave, the same shall be disbursed in accordance with law.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE SP