Huge win for working parents: Karnataka HC rules child care leave covers exam preparation, not just test dates

The legal battle began when Kavita V, an administrative officer at the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) in Bengaluru, sought CCL from December 16, 2025, to May 20, 2026. She requested time to support her son during his Class 10 Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) board examinations, which were scheduled in two phases.

C-DAC initially granted her only 18 days of leave, from February 16 to March 7, covering only the first phase of the exams. Following Kavita’s plea, the CAT modified the order on February 5, directing the department to grant leave until May 20, covering both the pre-board prep and the second exam phase.

The employer challenged the CAT order, arguing that such an extended absence would “hamper the functioning of the department”.

Advocate M Unnikrishnan, representing the employer, argued that the request for Child Care Leave was made to enable the respondent to support her son during his Class 10 board examinations. He stated that granting leave beyond the period necessary for this purpose would undermine the intent behind granting such leave.

Advocate K Satish, appearing for the woman employee, argued that the application for CCL encompasses the pre-board examinations, the first stage of the main examinations, and the second stage of the examinations.

Preparatory phase equally significant, says Karnataka High Court

The bench referred to Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which mandates that a female government servant or a single male government servant may seek CCL from the competent authority for purposes of education, illness, and other similar exigencies.

The court in its order said, “The Rule vests the Government servant with the discretion to seek Child Care Leave when the child requires his or her presence. No discretion is conferred upon the employer or the competent authority to adjudicate upon the sufficiency of the reasons assigned for seeking such leave.”

“In the absence of any such power, imposing a restriction on the period of leave sought would be impermissible,” it added.

The bench in the order also underscored that the preparatory phase preceding the examination is equally significant. It said, “Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that leave can be granted only for the exact period of the examination schedule cannot be accepted.”