ANOOPIKA RANDHAWA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is serving on the post of Lecturer (History) under the Haryana State Education Department has filed the instant writ petition impugning the orders dated 24.9.2010 (Annexure P-4) and 11.11.2010 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent no.4, whereby the claim of the petitioner for the grant of Child Care Leave has been rejected and recovery is sought to be effected from the pay already disbursed to the petitioner for the month of September, 2010. Petitioner further seeks the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing the respondents to grant and sanction the Child Care Leave applied for by the petitioner in the light of application dated 20.9.2010 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer (History) on 29.6.1999. In the month of June, 2006 the petitioner was posted as Lecturer (History) at Govt. Senior Secondary School, Rajjipur (Panchkula). On 6.1.2010 the petitioner was blessed with a son, who happened to be the second child of the petitioner out of wedlock. The petitioner at that point of time availed Maternity Leave w.e.f. 3.12.2009 to 30.5.2010. As per the pleadings on record son of the petitioner had to be admitted in General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula on 29.6.2010 on account of being infected with "Rota Virus". On receiving medical intervention and treatment the child was discharged on 2.7.2010. The same medical condition resurfaced on 18.7.2010 and which necessitated admission in the hospital again from 18.7.2010 to 25.7.2010. To take care of the baby the petitioner utilized her Earned and Casual Leave w.e.f. 1.7.2010 till 17.9.2010. It is further pleaded that on account of the medical condition of the child and to provide proper and sensitive care, the petitioner submitted an application dated 20.9.2010 for the sanction of the Child Care Leave for a period of 730 days. However, vide order dated 24.9.2010 at Annexure P-4 such claim of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted a representation/appeal to the District Education Officer, Education Department, Panchkula, respondent no.3. Vide communication dated 28.9.2010 (Annexure p-6) issued from the office of respondent no.3, the petitioner was directed back to the Principal of the Institution i.e. respondent no.4 as regards the claim for sanction of Child Care Leave. The petitioner, thereafter, was served with the subsequent impugned order dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P-8) informing her that she had already been intimated as regards non-sanction of Child Care Leave keeping in view the interest of the students. The petitioner was further informed that the pay of September, 2010 that had been granted in full is also liable to be recovered.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents no.2 to 4 justifying the action of denial of Child Care Leave to the petitioner by stating that in the school in question there was only one Lecturer of History and as such the decision had been taken purely in the interest of the students. It has been stated that Child Care Leave for a period of 730 days had been sought which would necessarily entail loss of study of the students over a considerable length of time. It has further been stated that the petitioner had already availed Maternity Leave w.e.f. 3.12.2009 to 30.5.2010 and thereafter Earned Leave/Casual Leave w.e.f. 1.7.2010 to 19.9.2010. In the reply even the conduct of the petitioner has been frowned upon while stating that the petitioner having submitted an application for Child Care Leave on 20.9.2010, did not even wait for any response/reply and proceeded to absent herself. It is under such circumstances that the salary for the month of September, 2010 that had been released inadvertently was sought to be recovered and since the petitioner had again absented from duty from October, 2010 to 6.4.2011 except one day i.e. 17.1.2011, the salary for such period was also not payable.