Supreme Court Disposes SLP on Child-Care Leave for Mothers of Differently-Abled Children in Himachal Pradesh
Last Updated on November 26, 2024 by Athi Venkatesh
The Supreme Court has disposed of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a Himachal Pradesh Government employee seeking child-care leave for working mothers with specially-abled children. The decision follows the state government’s notification of amended childcare leave rules in line with the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor in Geography at Government College, Nalagarh, sought relief to care for her 14-year-old son suffering from Osteogenesis Imperfecta. She exhausted her sanctioned leave due to his medical treatments and surgeries. Her plea highlighted the absence of a similar childcare leave policy in Himachal Pradesh.
Earlier, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed her writ petition in April 2021, stating that the state had not adopted Rule 43C of the Central Civil Services Rules, 1972. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
In April 2024, a Supreme Court bench led by former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud directed the state to review its policies. The Court underscored the importance of childcare leave in safeguarding the fundamental rights of working mothers. A committee headed by the State Commissioner under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, was also constituted to explore solutions.
The Himachal Pradesh Government issued a notification on July 31, 2024, amending its rules to include Rule 43C. This rule allows 730 days of childcare leave for female employees caring for children with a disability of at least 40%. The petitioner has since availed of 93 days of leave under the amended rules.
Advocate Pragati Neekhra, representing the petitioner, pointed out gaps in the amended rules. The Supreme Court granted the petitioner liberty to seek enhancements to the leave provisions through representation to the state. The state was directed to address any such request promptly.
The Court disposed of the matter, noting that the petitioner’s immediate concerns had been addressed.
