After Supreme Court Urge, Himachal Pradesh Government Notifies Child Care Leave Rules

The Supreme Court today quashed the SLP seeking child care leave for working mothers with specially-abled children in Government jobs in the State of Himachal Pradesh after the Court was informed that the State Government had notified child care leave under the central scheme. .

SLP was filed by the petitioner, who is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Government Geography College, Nalagarh. His 14-year-old son suffers from Osteogenesis Imperfecta (a rare genetic disorder). His son has had many surgeries since birth due to his medical condition. According to the applicant’s defense, his son needs constant treatment and surgical intervention in order to survive and lead a normal life. The applicant has exhausted all of his leave rights granted to him due to his treatments.

He filed a writ petition before the Himachal High Court under Article 226 seeking directions to grant Rule 43C (child care leave). Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972On behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh.

Through an Office Memorandum dated March 3, 2010, the Union Government decided to allow child care leave for female employees with differently-abled children up to 20 years of age. This benefit was not provided to the applicant.

However, the writ petition was dismissed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court on April 23, 2021, stating that the State of Himachal Pradesh has not adopted certain provisions regarding Child Care Leave in relation to Child Care Leave. The Rules, 1972. Therefore the petition had no value.

A bench today Justices B V Nagarathna and N K Singh The SLP was destroyed after being notified by. Registered Advocate Pragati Neekhra (for the petitioner) that the State Government has issued notification dated 31 July 2024 Central Civil Services (Leave) Himachal Pradesh Amendment Rules, 2024.

This comes in line with the Supreme Court’s directions to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to review its policies regarding child care leave for working mothers, especially mothers with children with special needs.

On a bench on April 22 Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala observed He stated that child care leave is important to ensure that the fundamental rights of a working mother are not compromised. Since the petition did not raise serious concern and there was no lack of policy framework, the Court also constituted a committee chaired by the State Commissioner under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 to examine possible solutions.

Amended rules notified in exercise of the powers conferred under the provision of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, The Rules, 1972Include Rule 43-C (child care leave) as applicable for the State of Himachal Pradesh.

Rule 1 of Rule 43C of the Himachal Pradesh Rules reads as follows: “Without prejudice to the provisions of this rule, a female civil servant may be granted child care leave by the competent authority to grant leave for the care of her disabled child for a maximum of seven hundred and thirty days throughout her entire service. Forty percent as stated in Notification No. 16-18/96-N 1.1 of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, up to two surviving children as on 1st June, 2001.”

Neekhra today submitted that although the amended rules in 2024 have been notified, they contain some loopholes in terms of Rule 43C in the 1972 Rules.

As Himachal Pradesh State Advocate, D K Thakur He submitted that the petitioner had availed the benefits of the 2024 Rules of up to 93 days of child care leave and was duly granted.

Based on this, the Court observed: “In this regard, we hereby dispose of this writ petition, preserving the freedom of the petitioner to seek freedom in pursuance of the aforesaid notification issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh by filing a representation for extension of assistance under the child care scheme. To leave. If such a declaration is made, the Respondent State will consider it as quickly as possible.”

Case Details: SHALINI DHARMANI VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SLP(C) No. 16864/2021

Appearing: Advocate Pragati Neekhra (for the petitioner) and Advocate DK Thakur (for the State of Himachal Pradesh)