The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that contractual employees are entitled to child care leave of up to 720 days during their service, providing a significant clarification on leave benefits for employees engaged on contract.
The 4 August order came in the case of Ayesha Sheikh, a contractual programmer posted at the State Education Centre in Khandwa. Sheikh had sought child care leave for her son, who has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a genetic condition that has left him dependent on assistance for basic movement.
Sheikh first applied for child care leave in 2020, when her son was around 14 years old. Her request was rejected on the grounds that the applicable rules did not provide for such leave for contractual employees.
The dispute continued through multiple rounds of litigation. The High Court had earlier directed the authorities to grant the leave. The state government challenged the decision, but its appeal was dismissed. The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere with the High Court’s order.
The latest proceedings arose after Sheikh said the earlier directions had still not been implemented. Justice Vishal Dhagat directed the authorities to provide her all applicable benefits, including child care leave. The Court also imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on Harjinder Singh, director of the State Education Centre, for failing to comply with previous court directions.
The Court’s decision comes against the backdrop of conflicting departmental provisions. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Mission had earlier provided for maternity and paternity leave for its contractual workforce but did not specifically include child care leave. Authorities had also relied on a July 2023 circular from the General Administration Department to contend that contractual employees were not eligible for the benefit.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 provide for up to 720 days of child care leave during an employee’s entire service tenure. The High Court’s latest order reinforces the employee’s entitlement and makes clear that departmental instructions cannot override binding court directions.
The case is also notable for the repeated litigation involved, with the High Court having issued directions in the matter on multiple occasions before the latest petition.