The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an employee’s right to claim Child Care Leave (CCL) cannot override larger public interest considerations, particularly where the absence of a specialist doctor could adversely affect public healthcare services.
The assertion by the Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, came during the hearing of an appeal filed by a doctor, who had challenged the rejection of her request for 609 days of CCL.
The doctor’s plea was initially placed before a Single Judge, after the competent authority declined CCL for 609 days on the ground that the predominant interest of public health would suffer due to lack of requisite medical specialist. The matter was placed before the Division Bench after the Single Judge refused to interfere with the order.
“We do not take exception to the view of the Single Judge as the right of an employee to claim CCL must always remain subservient to predominant public interest,” the Division Bench observed, while taking up the doctor’s appeal.
During the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant-doctor submitted that she would be willing to restrict her claim to 300 days instead of seeking 609, if the matter could be reconsidered afresh without being influenced by the earlier orders. The State did not oppose the request.
Taking note of the submissions, the Division Bench permitted the appellant to withdraw both the appeal and the writ petition, while granting liberty to approach the competent authority with a fresh claim for 300 days of CCL.
The Bench directed that any such request would be examined afresh in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the requirements of public interest, without being influenced by the previous decisions taken in the matter. The authority was asked to take the fresh decision within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.
What it means?
The ruling clarifies that CCL, though conceived as a welfare measure to help employees balance professional and caregiving responsibilities, is not an absolute right. The High Court has reaffirmed that when the grant of such leave is likely to impair the delivery of essential public services, particularly in critical sectors such as healthcare, authorities are entitled to place public interest above individual claims.
The judgment reinforces a broader principle of service jurisprudence that rights and benefits available to public servants must be balanced against the obligations they owe to the public. It is likely to serve as a precedent in future disputes involving CCL and other service benefits, with courts examining whether the exercise of an employee’s entitlement would adversely affect the functioning of public institutions and the services they provide.
