Smt. Tapasi Roy vs The State Of Tripura

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

Heard Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Learned Advocate General Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty, assisted by Learned Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

At the time of hearing Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. P Roy Barman, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is serving in the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Math) at Sankaracharya Vidyayatan, Unnayan Sangha, A.D. Nagar, Agartala, which is a Grant in Aid school. The only son of the petitioner, namely Pragyat Prasun (aged about 15 years) is studying at Kendriya Vidyalaya, JNU, New Delhi, who is a Class-IX student and he will be in Class-X, in April-2026. As such, he will appear in Class-X Board Examination during the year-2027.

It was further submitted that owing to his Class-X Board Examination, the son of the petitioner needs to attend regular tuition classes, attend the school regularly, and also, he has to study hard at home. It was also submitted that during that period the son of the petitioner needs emotional and psychological support of his parents, so that he could give his best output in his ensuing Class-X Board Examination. So, in such a situation, a mother is the best person to take care of his child. As the husband of the petitioner is serving under Ministry of Home Affairs and he is doing transferable job so it was not possible on his part to look after his son during this moment. In addition to that the son of the petitioner is suffering from breathing problem and requires to give frequent oxygen support to normalize his breathing problem. For this reason, the specialized doctor advised the petitioner to take him to less humidity area or are near sea beach, so that, his problem does not occur. Thereafter, the son of the petitioner was shifted to New Delhi while he was studying at Class-VII and at that time his father was posted in Delhi.

It was further submitted that the Government of Tripura amended the Tripura State Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1986. In exercise of the powers, conferred by the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tripura has been pleased to promulgate the 13^th Amendment to the said Rules, by inserting Rule 39(C), vide Notification No.F.1(1)-FIN(G)/86 dated 12.12.2017, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura. So, considering the educational carrier of her son the petitioner submitted a Leave Application, dated 02.09.2025, followed by applications, dated, 18.08.2025, 26.08.2025 before the concerned Head of the Office viz. the Headmistress, Sankaracharyya Vidyayatan School, A.D. Nagar, Unnayan Sangha, Tripura, thereby praying for sanctioning Child Care Leave for different spells, mentioned in the said applications, in her favour, inter alia canvassing the need for such leave, with specific ground mentioned in the said applications.

But, even after elapsing of a considerable period of near about one month therefrom, the said application of the petitioner did not fetch any response, except the endorsement of regret by the Secretary, of the School, in the left side of the application itself. Situated thus, the petitioner submitted a detailed Leave Application dated 02.09.2025, to the Director of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura, inter alia praying for sanctioning Child Care Leave for 365 days w.e.f. 16.01.2026 to 15.01.2027, in her favour mentioning the necessity of granting CCL in favour of her with station leave permission for building strength and welfare of her minor child due to upcoming Board Examination of her son. But the said Leave Application also has not been responded by the respondents.

Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that by a memorandum bearing No.F.4(6)-Circular/SE/E(Trg.)/2019 dated 04.08.2020, issued by the Additional Secretary, Education (School) Department, Government of Tripura, laid down certain criteria for proceeding on Child Care Leave, under Rule 39(C) of the Tripura State Civil Service (Leave)(Thirteenth Amendment) Rules, 1986 (Annexure-1 supra).

Referring the said notification Annexure-7, Learned Sr. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court that the said executive instruction is contrary to the Rule-39(C) of the Tripura State Civil Service (Leave) (Thirteenth Amendment) Rules, 1986.

It was further submitted that challenging the said memorandum dated 04.08.2020, one similarly situated employee namely Shibani Das filed one writ petition before this High Court bearing No. WP(C) No.600/2023 and this High Court by judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 also set aside and quashed the said memorandum dated 04.08.2020 as void-ab-initio.

Referring the same, Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that welfare of a child is a paramount importance and such welfare cannot be ensured in absence of the mother’s nursing and care during the hours of need, more specifically, during the ensuring Board Examination, 2027, of the son of the petitioner, who is presently studying at JNU, New Delhi, in Class-IX and as the respondents by not acting upon the representation of the petitioner, dated 02.09.2025, has been causing serious miscarriage of justice to the prejudice of the petitioner, which according to the Learned Sr. Counsel of the petitioner, is nothing but denial of the Child Care Leave (CCL), in favour of the petitioner, which would cause irreparable loss and injury to the minor son of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court seeking the redress as stated above.

Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the said judgment, delivered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court, has attained finality and that the case of the petitioner is similar to that case dealt with therein. Learned Sr. Counsel, therefore, urged before the Court to draw similar inference in favour of the petitioner and allow the present writ petition.

The State respondents have contested the case by filing counter affidavit, wherein they have, inter alia, contended that the grant and sanction of CCL is a matter of discretion of the competent CCL-sanctioning authority and that the petitioner cannot claim such leave as a matter of right. It has further been contended that, during the period from 2022 to 2025, the petitioner had availed several spells of leave, which had adversely affected the administration of the school. On these grounds, the respondents, in their counter-affidavit, have submitted that there is no merit in the petition and have urged for its dismissal. However, in paragraphs 14, 15 and 34 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents have made the following assertions:

”14. That, with regard to paragraphs- 9 of the writ petition, I humbly submit that, it is pertinent to mention here that, by notification of the Finance Department, annexure 1 to the Writ petition, the Tripura State Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1986 have been added. Here, Rule 2(Vii) of this amended notification is relevant, which runs as follows-" (vii) Child Care Leave shall not be demanded as a matter of right and under no circumstances can any employee proceed on Child Care Leave, without prior sanction of leave by a competent authority". So, the sanction of CCL is a matter of the discretion of the competent CCL sanctioning authority.

That, with regard to paragraphs- 10 of the writ petition, I humbly submit that, the regret letter of the Secretary, Managing Committee of Sankaracharyya Vidyayatan itself speaks that the CCL sanctioning authority of the school does not deem it justified to sanction the CCL, taking into consideration the better interest of the students of the school. Submitting an application to this directorate is a matter of record. Moreover the petitioner has consistently taken different leaves and CCL as given below:-Leave at a glance:-

CCL Credit- 730 days

Enjoyed upto Oct, 2025- 3 64 days

------------------------------------------------

Balance - 366 days

This picture clearly indicates how the leave periods repeatedly create menace in her class routine and hamper the classes of students.

Copy of information about leave of Smti. Tapasi Roy is enclosed herewith marked as Annexure-R/1.

The petitioner is creating an instance of utilization of CCL will have a negative impact upon other female staff (the school has 100% of female staff). The noon section where the concerned petitioner is working for which they will also be eager to take CCL on the slightest opportunity only for which the students and the school will be sufferer.

That, with regard to paragraphs- 29 of the writ petition, I humbly submit that, Child Care Leave may be sanctioned only after the arrangement of substitute teachers who can run the normal work of the applicants without hampering the class work so that students are not deprived of the learning process. In case the same is not possible, the matter may be referred to the concerned District Education Officer.”

Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State respondents, first of all drawn the attention of the Court that even for argument sake, the notification dated 04.08.2020 issued by the Additional Secretary, School Education Department, is not in force, still the petitioner as a matter of right, cannot claim the same benefit thereunder. It was further submitted that the grant or sanction of the CCL is within the discretion of the competent authority. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to make out any case or establish any right to issue any mandamus in her favour. Accordingly, it was contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

In support of his contention, Learned Advocate General relied upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Indrani Das (Sarkar) vs. The State of Tripura and Ors., reported in 2026 Legal Eagle 247, wherein, in para 10 of this High Court has observed as under:

General submitted that, since the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court, she is not entitled to get any relief in the present writ petition. Accordingly, Learned Advocate General urged that the writ petition be dismissed.

Heard both the sides at length and perused the writ petition, the documents annexed thereto, the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents, as well as the documents annexed therewith.

Admittedly, the petitioner has 366 days of CCL credited to her account. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the petitioner can claim and avail of the said benefit as a matter of right. For the sake of convenience, the relevant Rule 39(C), as contained in Notification No. F.1(1)-FIN(G)/86 dated 12.12.2017, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura, is reproduced hereinbelow:

From the aforesaid Rule, it appears that the CCL can be availed in respect of a child up to 18 years of age. Such leave may be availed of on more than one occasion and shall not be debited against the leave account. However, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under no circumstances an employee can proceed on CCL without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority. It is further provided that such leave shall not ordinarily be granted during the period of probation, except in certain extreme situations where the leave-sanctioning authority is fully satisfied about the necessity of granting CCL to the probationer.

So, before granting CCL, the competent authority is required to consider the aforesaid requirements at the time of sanctioning such leave. In the case at hand, admittedly, the son of the petitioner is pursuing his studies at New Delhi and, for the purpose of appearing in his Board Examination, the petitioner sought CCL from the competent authority. It is also borne out from the record that the son of the petitioner is suffering from certain physical ailments, for which the care and assistance of the petitioner is, at the same time, necessary and inevitable.

From the record, it appears that the petitioner had availed of leave for certain periods during the years 2022–2025. The State respondents, in their counter affidavit, have sought to draw the attention of the Court to the fact that the grant and sanction of CCL is within the discretion of the competent authority and that the petitioner cannot claim the said benefit as a matter of right. Save and except the aforesaid submissions, no other grounds have been projected by the State respondents in their counter affidavit.

The petitioner, in the course of hearing, relied upon a judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.600/2023 (supra), wherein, in para No. 6, 7 & 15 to 18, this Court has observed as under:

From the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it appears that, by the said judgment, this Court quashed the memorandum dated 04.08.2020 issued by Additional Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Tripura, and allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein.

It is a settled position of law that, while interpreting any rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the legislative intent underlying such rule has to be kept in mind. The Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986, was amended by the government, keeping in view the necessity of providing leave in certain urgency and circumstances of any person. In the present case, the petitioner sought CCL for the purpose of attending her son, who is pursuing his studies at Delhi and is preparing for his final examination. It is also an admitted position that the said child is presently staying alone at Delhi and requires intermittent support, nursing and care from his mother from time to time during the course of his studies and preparation for the examination.

The respondent authorities, in their counter affidavit, save and except for referring to the statutory prescription, have not raised any other grounds for refusing relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, on the grounds as stated supra. From the aforesaid Rule promulgated by the respondents, it is evident that, as a settled position, the petitioner cannot claim CCL as a matter of right and that the grant or refusal of such leave lies within the discretion of the competent leave-sanctioning authority. However, at the same time, the necessity for which such leave is sought for is also required to be duly considered by the competent authority while taking a decision on the prayer for leave. In the present case, the respondent authorities, either in their written statement or at the time of hearing, have failed to satisfy this Court as to how the administration of the institution would suffer if the petitioner is granted the CCL as sought for.

Furthermore, on perusal of the said Rules, it appears that a woman government servant may be granted Child Care Leave (CCL) for a maximum period of two years, i.e. 730 days, during the entire service period, for taking care of up to two children, whether for the purpose of attending to their examination, sickness, or any other needs, subject to the terms and conditions prescribed therein.

Thus, it appears that the leave-sanctioning authority, without assigning any cogent reasons, failed to consider and act upon the representation submitted by the petitioner on 02.09.2025, seeking grant of CCL for the period as stated supra.

Since the respondents have not projected any other ground, save and except the statutory prescription, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was no cogent or justifiable reason on the part of the respondents to refuse to sanction CCL in favour of the petitioner merely on the ground that such leave could not be claimed as a matter of statutory right.

The judgment relied upon by Learned Advocate General at the time of hearing is, no doubt, relevant to the issue involved. However, if the application of the petitioner is refused by relying upon the said judgment, it would tantamount to denial of the right available to the petitioner for which the legislature framed the Rule 39(C) by amendment of the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) (Thirteenth Amendment) Rules, 1986.

In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to grant CCL to the petitioner for a period of 365 days in response to her representation dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure-6), within a period of one month from the date of passing of this judgment.

The instant writ petition accordingly stands allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.