SC seeks Jharkhand HC's response on rejection of child care leave for woman ADJ

New Delhi, May 29 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Thursday sought a response from the Jharkhand High Court within a week on rejection of a child care leave application filed by Additional District Judge (ADJ) Kashika M. Prasad, who is posted in the state.

The direction came from a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih while hearing a petition filed by Prasad, who challenged the refusal to grant her child care leave.

The apex court instructed that its order be communicated to the Jharkhand High Court via email and made it clear that the matter would be conclusively heard on the next date of listing.

“All the parties are informed that we will settle the matter on the next date,” the court stated in its order.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for the petitioner informed the court that Prasad is a single parent and has maintained an exemplary service record. Her Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), he said, reflect her professional excellence.

The petition noted that Prasad had sought leave from June 10 under the Jharkhand High Court’s child care leave policy, which allows for up to 730 days of such leave. However, her application was rejected without assigning any reasons.

The bench asked why the petitioner had not first approached the Jharkhand High Court for judicial relief before knocking on the doors of the apex court.

In response, her counsel explained that while immediate relief was needed, the High Court’s rules did not classify the matter as ‘urgent’. As a result, any listing would have only happened after the summer recess.

ADJ Prasad was earlier posted in the Hazaribagh District Court and has recently been transferred. Her advocate argued that due to the recent transfer and her responsibilities as a single parent, managing childcare had become challenging -- prompting the leave request.

After the petition was filed and mentioned for urgent hearing, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the matter but questioned the grounds on which the leave had been denied.

The counsel submitted that no reason had been provided in the rejection order.

--IANS

snc/skp/dan