Child Care Leave Policy Protects Motherhood, Denying It Violates Rights Of Mother And Her Child : Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court today (April 16) said that the legislation by brining in the Child Care Leave (CCL) policy has acknowledged the contribution of a woman to familial stability, her role in nurturing her children and thus, the Government must ensure that the policy is properly implemented to secure its objects. 

Single-judge Justice Dr Neela Gokhale said that by granting the CCL to women not only protects her own rights but also the rights of her children. 

"The legislation acknowledges the indispensable contribution of a woman in familial stability, her responsibility in nurturing and caring for a child, and the physical and emotional demands attached to motherhood. By providing income security and institutional support during this critical phase, the legislation seeks to ensure that motherhood does not operate as a source of disadvantage in the workplace, but is instead accommodated as a socially valuable function warranting protection and respect. Considering the importance of the policy to grant CCL to women, not only is her right sought to be protected, but even the right of her child to her society and comfort is sought to be secured," Justice Gokhale observed.

The bench was hearing a plea filed by the husband of one Millie Do Rosario,  who worked as an Assistant Accounts Officer at the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, Bambolim in Goa, who wrote to her department head on August 7, 2020 seeking a 266 days leave under the CCL policy stating that her son, who was then in Class 12, was a weak student and thus needed her care and support during this crucial phase of his life. She also highlighted the prevailing conditions of Covid-19 pandemic, in her plea. She had thus, sought leave from September 7, 2020 to May 30, 2021 (a total of 266 days or eight months).

However, the Department sanctioned a total of 60 days leave under the CCL policy from October 19, 2020 to December 17, 2020. The department also refused to extend her leaves further and rejected all her subsequent pleas for extension of her leaves and thus she had to resume work. 

Contending that denying such leaves violates her fundamental rights, Millie's husband Valencio D'Souza filed a complaint before the Goa State Human Rights Commission, which dismissed the said plea on April 11, 2022 and subsequently dismissed the review plea on August 8, 2022. 

Justice Gokhale noted that the Government of Goa had introduced the CCL policy in February 2013 and a subsequent circular was also issued in June 2014, prescribing detailed procedure for allowing or disallowing the CCL policy for female government servants. She noted that the policy provided for a minimum of six months leave for the women employees of the State.

"Because of the non-adherence to the policy framed and circulated by the DoPT to all the Government offices concerned, the Petitioner's child was deprived of the support of his mother," the judge observed.

Even if the Department was understaffed and required the services of the Petitioner's wife, the Director ought to have referred her (Millie's) request with her own recommendation of refusal of the CCL as sought by her, to the concerned Minister. The Minister concerned would have then taken the decision. To that extent, there was a lapse on the part of the official concerned in adhering to the terms of the policy, the bench held. 

However, with the efflux of time, the judge opined that the purpose for which the CCL was sought, did not exist at present. 

"Thus, nothing survives in the petition as on date; however, the Government Officials concerned must act in aid of the relevant and prevailing policies concerning CCL so as to secure the objects of such policies," the judge made it clear. 

With these observations, the bench disposed of the petition.

Appearance:

Advocate Vitthal Naik appeared for the Petitioner. 

Additional Government Advocate Sulekha Kamat represented the State. 

Case Title: Valencio D'Souza vs The Director,  Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour [Writ Petition 764 of 2023 (Filing No)]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 183

g

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment