When CCL is Refused: Recent CAT Cases (2024-2025) and Your Remedy Options

Child Care Leave is the leave category that has produced the largest number of contested cases in the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Courts in 2024 and 2025. The CAT, the Delhi High Court and the Karnataka High Court have, between them, narrowed the discretion available to a sanctioning authority to refuse CCL to a level that did not exist five years ago. This piece walks through the key recent rulings, sets out what each one operationally means for a serving employee, and ends with a step-by-step remedy template for an employee whose CCL application has been refused.

The legal anchor

Rule 43-C of the CCS (Leave) Rules 1972, read with the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 11 December 2018, grants up to 730 days of Child Care Leave during the entire service of a woman Government employee for taking care of up to two minor children. The first 365 days are on full pay; the remainder is on 80 percent pay. The leave is meant for “rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness etc.” The rule is broadly worded; the dispute lies in the “etc.”.

Smt. Rajesh Rathi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2025)

Citation: 2025:DHC:9855-DB. Division Bench, Delhi High Court (Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain).

Facts: The petitioner, a TGT Mathematics teacher in a government school in Delhi, repeatedly applied for CCL to care for her two children in Classes X and XII, while her husband (a Marine Engineer) was on extended overseas postings. Her CCL applications were refused on grounds of “administrative inconvenience” (unavailability of substitute Mathematics teacher), but EOL was sanctioned for 303 days for the same period. She approached the CAT seeking conversion of EOL to CCL; CAT dismissed her plea on the ground that CCL is not a matter of right.

Held: The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT order. The court observed that “while it is correct that CCL is not an entitlement as of right, the discretion to deny cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mechanically. It must be guided by the object and spirit of the rule, which is to support the welfare of the child and the legitimate needs of the mother.” The court further found that “the contradiction between the refusal of CCL on grounds of administrative inconvenience and simultaneous approval of EOL undermines the respondents’ justification”. The court directed that all periods of EOL availed by the petitioner be converted into CCL in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.

What this means for employees: If CCL has been refused on grounds of administrative inconvenience, but other leave (EOL, EL, HPL) has been sanctioned for the same period, the refusal is contradictory. The employee can seek conversion of the alternative leave into CCL through a representation citing this judgment. The remedy is no longer speculative; it has been crystallised by a Division Bench order.

Ministry of Electronics and IT v. Kavita Vadde (Karnataka HC, March 2026)

Bench: Justice SG Pandit and Justice KV Aravind, Karnataka High Court Division Bench.

Facts: Kavita Vadde, an administrative officer at C-DAC, sought CCL from 16 December 2025 to 20 May 2026 to support her son during his Class X CBSE Board examinations. The CAT Bengaluru Bench allowed the extended CCL. MeitY and C-DAC challenged the order before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that CCL should be restricted to the actual exam dates and not the preparation period.

Held: The Division Bench dismissed the petition and upheld the CAT order. The court held that CCL “is not restricted to the exact dates of a child’s school exam and can also cover the preparatory period before exams”. The bench further clarified that “the rule gives the government servant discretion to seek CCL when the child requires his or her presence, including for educational purposes” and that “the rules do not confer any discretion on the employer or competent authority to assess the sufficiency of the reasons for seeking leave. In the absence of any such power, imposing a restriction on the period of leave sought would be impermissible.”

What this means for employees: The standard departmental position that CCL should cover only the exam dates (and not the preparatory period) is no longer sustainable. The employee’s own assessment of the child’s needs, within the scope of the rule, is what governs. Sanctioning authorities cannot reduce the period sought on the basis of their own view of what is “enough” for examination preparation.

NIMHANS v. S Anitha Joseph (Karnataka HC, November 2024)

Bench: Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice C M Joshi.

Facts: A nurse at NIMHANS sought 120 days of CCL. NIMHANS refused on grounds that her absence from the ICU would create operational difficulties and that CCL is not a matter of right. The CAT Bengaluru Bench directed NIMHANS to consider granting the leave. NIMHANS challenged the order in the Karnataka High Court.

Held: The Karnataka High Court dismissed NIMHANS’s petition. The court observed that “a casual leave is a matter of routine whereas, maternity leave is a serious matter. The significance of Child Care Leave cannot be discounted.” The court rejected the argument that the operational difficulty was an absolute bar, noting that the petitioner had “explained in her representation as to why she needed such a long leave. What heavens would have fallen down if her request was favourably considered, is difficult to guess.” NIMHANS was directed to give effect to the CAT order within eight weeks.

What this means for employees: The “operational difficulty” argument requires more than a generalised assertion. The sanctioning authority has to engage with the specific reasons offered by the employee and explain why those reasons are insufficient in the specific context. A blanket refusal citing operational difficulty will not survive judicial scrutiny.

The remedy path: step by step

Step 1: Internal representation

If CCL has been refused, the first step is a written representation to the next-higher authority within the department, citing the relevant rulings (Rajesh Rathi for arbitrary refusal; Kavita Vadde for restriction of period; Anitha Joseph for blanket operational-difficulty arguments). The representation should include a copy of the original application, a copy of the refusal order, and a paragraph for each ground in the refusal explaining why the refusal contradicts the case law. Allow 14 days for response.

Step 2: Departmental grievance redress

If the representation is not disposed of or is rejected, the next step is the departmental grievance redress mechanism. Most ministries have an internal grievance committee; the employee union (where one exists) can also raise the matter through the JCM machinery for collective issues.

Step 3: CAT

If departmental remedies fail, the employee can approach the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. The application is filed at the CAT Bench having jurisdiction over the duty station, with the original refusal order and a copy of the representation that was rejected. CAT proceedings are usually disposed of within 6-12 months.

Step 4: High Court

An adverse CAT order can be challenged before the jurisdictional High Court. The Rajesh Rathi case is itself an example of this route: the petitioner lost at CAT and prevailed at the High Court.

What the case law has settled

Five propositions can now be treated as settled across these recent judgments:

1. CCL is not an absolute right, but the discretion to refuse is narrow.
2. The discretion cannot be exercised “arbitrarily or mechanically”.
3. The sufficiency of the employee’s stated reason is not for the employer to assess.
4. The leave can cover preparation periods, not just exam dates.
5. A refusal that contradicts simultaneous grants of other leave for the same period is unsustainable.

An employee with a refused CCL application is on much firmer ground today than five years ago. The remedy path exists, the case law supports it, and the specific phrasing for representations and pleadings is available from the cited rulings.

For the application format library that includes a CCL response template citing these cases, see CCL: 12 Sample Applications.