The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that Child Care Leave (CCL) is not restricted to the exact dates of a child’s school exam and can also cover the preparatory period before exams.
A Division Bench comprising Justice SG Pandit and Justice KV Aravind passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Bengaluru-based Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC). The petition challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench, which had allowed an extended CCL to a C-DAC employee.
The case arose after Kavita Vadde, an administrative officer at C-DAC, sought CCL from December 16, 2025, to May 20, 2026, to support her son during his Class 10 CBSE Board examinations. However, C-DAC granted her leave only from February 16 to March 7, 2026, the schedule for the first phase of examinations. She then approached the CAT, which, on February 5, 2026, directed the department to grant her leave from February 6 to May 20.
Challenging the CAT’s decision, the Ministry and C-DAC argued before the High Court that CCL should be confined strictly to the examination period. They contended that granting leave beyond the exam dates would hamper the functioning of the department and defeat the purpose of such leave.
The High Court rejected this argument. Referring to Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, the Bench observed that a plain reading of the provision shows that the leave is not limited only to the days of the examination. The court said the preparatory phase preceding exams is equally important.
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. It noted 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,” the court said, while upholding the CAT’s order and dismissing the petition filed by MeitY and C-DAC.