PDA

View Full Version : child care leave



Sunita
22-11-2010, 02:16 PM
The DOPT has restricted the use of child care leave to 3 times ina year with a minimum of 15 days each time. A provision was also made to convert the the earlier availed earned leave to child care leave.

The doubt is what about those cases who have availed child care leave more than 3 times in a year, how it is to be restricted, what leave to be granted for the excess period/no. of time in year, what about the chld care leave availed less than 15 days, is it to be converted to Earned leave.

the dopt changes the rules but why the problems faced while implenmenting a change is not taken into account..who will raise voice for this???

veraich
22-11-2010, 05:23 PM
Madam,

The clause 4 of the order reads as under:

"4. These orders take effect from 1.9.2008. Earned Leave, if any, availed by women employees before availing CCL subsequent to the issue of the OM 13018/2/2008-Estt. (L) dated 18- 1 1-2008 may be adjusted against CCL, if so requested by the employee."

I feel the order may be interpretted that an employee may excercise her discretion regarding which specific spells of EL she wants to be retrospecively converted to CCL subject to overall limit of three per calendar year. Here it need not matter whether such previously availed spells were of more than 15 or less than 15 days.
Order simply reads EL, if any, already availed. It has not been qualified with any condition regarding quantum of leave.

The other conditions (Clause 1 to 3) regarding limit on number of spells (maximum 3 in a calendar year), minimum days in a spell (15) and not be granted during probabation can have prospective effect only.

Hardeep

sundarar
22-11-2010, 08:34 PM
We may have to look from the date of effect given and the purpose for the same.
We cannot have part benefit from the amended provision and the rest from the original version. In case, EL for a period of more than 15 days had been applied in the past, as the condition then was to exhaust EL first, the same can be converted into CCL in accordance with the amended provision that was given retrospective effect. On the contrary, if there was an EL for one day, two days then the condition of 15 days as per the amended provision having retrospective effect will naturaly get applied. According to me, if the EL is less than 15 days prior to amendment of CCL, the same shall remain undisturbed. When there is a provision to convert EL to CCL, the CCL less than 15 days
also can get converted as EL in order to avail the CCL as per the amended provisions as and when the need arises without affecting the official exigencies. Some gain as well as some sacrifice cannot be avoided and it may vary on a case to case basis. We should not forget that we did avail EL for all reasons including child care in the past as per our requirement prior to introduction of CCL.

An order when implemented with retrospective effect, the existing version gets null and void with retrospective effect. Unless there is a specific clarification with regard to quantum/spell of EL availed, the interpretation cannot be as per our choice. The retrospective effect means it shall be in toto in all respects.

Seeking clarification will make the position very clear, and I will stand corrected if the actual position is otherwise.

SASI
22-11-2010, 09:16 PM
The OM dated 7-9-2010 was issued to rectify an erroneous condition in the OM dated 18-11-2008 that CCL can be availed only if the employee has no EL at credit. Hence Earned leave taken subsequent to 18-11-2008 were allowed to be converted as CCL.

Two conditions on the sanctioning of CCL is introduced by this OM :

1.can not be granted for less than 15 days.
2.Can not be granted more than three spells.

The date of effect of these orders is 1-9-2008.

If we interpret that only earned leave satisfying these conditions can be converted as CCL, then CCL taken for these period for less than 15 days and for spells exceeding 3 will have to be cancelled! This of course is not the intention of the OM.

SASI

sundarar
22-11-2010, 10:33 PM
While the purpose is to rectify an erroneous condition, the EL for a period of 15 days and above, can very well get converted particularly when the amended provision is given retrospective effect. Otherwise, it should have been given prospective effect. As far as CCL for less than 15 days period, no conversion may be required as in the case of EL for a period of less than 15 days that does not qualify for conversion as per the amended version. In short, either EL or CCL, if less than 15 days, will go undisturbed even under the amended version. Same is in r/o the no. of spells.The question of conversion arises, only when the EL exceeds 15 days. To what extent the retrospective effect will mean, only a further clarification on the manner in which past cases are to be treated, can clear the doubts. However, it is a fit matter for discussion till official clarification as the situation may vary from case to case.

The need for certain restrictions, etc. arise only when everyone wants to avail at once and exhaust at the earliest a facility given with a long term purpose. But, the priority
lies in work progress without much vacuum. With this in background, the amended provision attempts to balance both.

Sunita
25-11-2010, 10:47 AM
A very good interpretation. But will the DOPT wake up and give clear guidelines so that the child care is not misused. Further a child is studying in a hostel in different state , will the child care be eligible for that , in any case the mother is not able to go and stay in hostel (boys hostel). how the querry of the sanctioning authority has to be answered? kindly give some guidelines

Victor
25-11-2010, 11:23 AM
A very good interpretation. But will the DOPT wake up and give clear guidelines so that the child care is not misused. Further a child is studying in a hostel in different state , will the child care be eligible for that , in any case the mother is not able to go and stay in hostel (boys hostel). how the querry of the sanctioning authority has to be answered? kindly give some guidelines

Child Care Leave is admissible to women employees for taking care of up to two minor children whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness etc.

So given a situation, if the lady can fulfill the above basic condition of CCL, she is entitled to apply for CCL. The Leave Sanctioning Authority has to be convinced that the basic conditions stated above will be fulfilled during the CCL applied for.

Victor

sundarar
27-11-2010, 07:32 AM
Madam,

The clause 4 of the order reads as under:

"4. These orders take effect from 1.9.2008. Earned Leave, if any, availed by women employees before availing CCL subsequent to the issue of the OM 13018/2/2008-Estt. (L) dated 18- 1 1-2008 may be adjusted against CCL, if so requested by the employee."

Hardeep

Whether the above provison will mean that any EL for a period of more than 15 days that was availed prior to issue of OM dated 18.11.2008 can be converted in to CCL if so requested by the employee? That is whether only EL availed during 1.9.2008-18.11.2008 can be converted into CCL and if so, even less than 15 days also can be whether converted?

Suppose the purpose of EL is towards personal tour, etc. whether such leave also could be converted?

veraich
06-12-2010, 11:00 PM
Sir,

My interpretation was in particular context and accordingly limited to extent that EL availed previously, but after OM of date 18.11.2008, by a women govt. servant, provided it is for discharge of such responsibilities which qualify for CCL, can be adjusted. As such there is no binding on the duration of EL spell already availed for adjustment purpose.

If it presumed that employee availed herself many short spells, the adjustment will automatically get limited by number of spells i.e. 3; and if availed in one or two long spells, it automatically qualifies, provided the purpose of leave is Child care.

Regards, Eagerly awaiting your views.

Hardeep

sundarar
07-12-2010, 06:48 AM
Madam,

The clause 4 of the order reads as under:

"4. These orders take effect from 1.9.2008. Earned Leave, if any, availed by women employees before availing CCL subsequent to the issue of the OM 13018/2/2008-Estt. (L) dated 18- 1 1-2008 may be adjusted against CCL, if so requested by the employee."

I feel the order may be interpretted that an employee may excercise her discretion regarding which specific spells of EL she wants to be retrospecively converted to CCL subject to overall limit of three per calendar year. Here it need not matter whether such previously availed spells were of more than 15 or less than 15 days.
Order simply reads EL, if any, already availed. It has not been qualified with any condition regarding quantum of leave.

The other conditions (Clause 1 to 3) regarding limit on number of spells (maximum 3 in a calendar year), minimum days in a spell (15) and not be granted during probabation can have prospective effect only.

Hardeep
Sir,

My interpretation was in particular context and accordingly limited to extent that EL availed previously, but after OM of date 18.11.2008, by a women govt. servant, provided it is for discharge of such responsibilities which qualify for CCL, can be adjusted. As such there is no binding on the duration of EL spell already availed for adjustment purpose.

If it presumed that employee availed herself many short spells, the adjustment will automatically get limited by number of spells i.e. 3; and if availed in one or two long spells, it automatically qualifies, provided the purpose of leave is Child care.

Regards, Eagerly awaiting your views.

Hardeep

Thanks for your kind rejoinder. According to me, except through para 4 of the said OM, nowhere has made any provision for conversion of EL availed. Just because, the OM was given retrospective effect, we may be interpreting that conversion of EL availed into CCL is implicit.

First, the CCL has to be treated as EL as per the OM. An EL cannot get converted into another EL.

Second, the exception clause is provided vide para 4 of the OM. In spite, even in the exception, there are two periods involved during implementation of the CCL on its introduction from 1.9.2008.

The period between 1.9.2008 till the order is received initially at the respective administration, which may be around at least a month or so. During this period, even in the absence of an Order introducing CCL, employees would have availed EL. Having got a retrospective effect from 1.9.2008, those EL could be converted into CCL - This is one interpretation.

Similarly, the other period starts from the day they exhaust their EL, and started availing CCL strictly in accordance with the clarificatory OM dated 18.11.2008. Thus, during this particular period, ie. subsequent to issue of clarificatory OM dated 18.11.2008 till they start availing CCL in real terms, those EL availed out of compulsion owing to the condition that EL has to be exhausted before availing CCL, having since removed now with the latest Order, can be convereted into CCL if the employee requests for the same.

Thus, there are two types of EL entitled for adjustment as CCL. One is availed in the absence of CCL introduction, the other one is availed out of compulsion for exhaustion.
Both types are entitled for adjustment as CCL. We cannot reverse the clock otherwise but for the exception clause provided vide the said para 4.

Now a question may arise. In case, even after issue of OM dt. 18.11.2008 till the date of issue of latest order, if an employee availed only EL and not CCL, whether that will also be qualified for adjustment? No. Because there is no restriction for CCL of 730 days to get exhausted within a particular duration of 1.9.2008-till the date of issue of latest order. It can be availed till the 18th age of the second child. The EL upto a period of maximum of 300 days can be accumulated while in service. Assuming an employee was on EL for an entire period of 300 days since 1.9.2008 till the date of issue of latest order, for the purpose of taking care of child, and even if all the EL availed are adjusted against CCL, again they have to avail the earned leave only after exhausting the CCL of remaining 430 days during the period till the 18th year of second child and even after wards also. So, while EL will not come to an end, but CCL will, on completion of 730 days for which the period left and depending on the urgency, subject to approval of the sanctioning authority, etc. Here, those who are likely to miss the bus in between owing to age factor of the second child, or for any other reasons, may have to satisfy themselves by looking at those who missed the bus already since 1.9.2008 (ie. whose second child crossed the age of 18 years as on 1.9.2008). Therefore, but for the two specific periods cited, I don't think any adjustment is specifically called for through the latest OM, otherwise it would have clearly indicated that all EL availed since 1.9.2008 can be adjusted against CCL if the employee requested so.

(Before concluding I would like to share a real experience I heard with regard to CCL in an office. For taking care of Child's 12th Exam. an employee applied CCL from 14.12.2010 to 31.3.2011. The sanctioning authority has sought to know whether the CCL could be postponed till 20.12.2010 owing to certain audit work. But the employee is keeping
on requesting without realising that in such an emergency, a little adjustment is not going to affect adversely the child's study. Ultimately, there is no alternative since the employee is not getting convinced. No fault also could be found as the employee is availing his entitled leave only any way, but what about the office? Thus, in many occassions, the sanctioning authority has to ultimately sacrifice his power of sanction/restriction. So, it is always better to take in view the office environment, workload, pending work, etc. although the leave is normally not getting denied anywhere, because the sanctioning authority too being a human, also knows the hardship of a woman employee)

As regards conversion factor, our friends may differ with the views of mine, which I am very much aware. This happens owing to the enough scope for further clarification through another OM.

At the same time, it is also a fact that just because an employee happens to be a male, irrespective of the fact whether his spouse is employed or otherwise - but he too has two children to take care at least till 18 years afterwhich the children will take care of the parent, he has to compromise certain entitlements as an employee in his official life tour owing to the gender factor, in the absence of corresponding compensation. The CCL is one such compromising factor for a male employee. The job being the prioritised one, ultimately, overall enhanced quality output from the workforce must be the expectation of the Govt. for implementing better service conditions every now and then. In that event, all need to stand committed to the overall growth further at all point of time, which is my wish and prayer.


Under the circumstances, with utmost responsibility towards the job front, duly recognising the noble intention behind the CCL aspect, an efficient utilisation of the CCL by the concerned employee duly taking care of the official front too with an enhanced output, will make the Govt. to bring such enhanced service conditions in future too, of course, for one and all of the workforce.

Best wishes

sundarar
15-12-2010, 05:54 AM
An applicant who availed EL in the month of June/July, and CCL subsequently upto
September, has requested for conversion of the said EL into CCL for the purpose of
regularising her absence during a subsequent period in November, although such absence
is under prior intimation and approval for the purpose of taking care of child. She has no
earned leave at her credit as on 1st November. If at all the conversion is allowed, she will
apply the same EL to cover the said period of absence in November. In stead, she could have applied for CCL itself, but the periods are in many spells and less than 15 days. Thus,
again the question arises, whether the leave period of less than 15 days and more than 3 spells can be converted into CCL because the pre-revised order as well as the revised order are effective from 1.9.2008. Whether the purpose indicated in the leave application should be for the intended purpose, viz. child care only. In the absence of clarity,
such situations emerge. In stead, without giving any scope for re-opening the past cases,
the conditions prescribed through the latest order could have been given a prospective effect.

sundarar
01-01-2011, 06:16 PM
The latest clarification dated 30.12.2010 on conversion of EL into CCL is available at
http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/Estt/13018_1_2010-Estt.-Leave30122010.pdf

veraich
06-01-2011, 03:56 PM
Thanks. The views of experts and interpretations made have been corroborated.
Regards
Hardeep

Sunita
21-02-2011, 11:12 AM
A clarification is sought from senior members. The child Care leave rules clearly states that it should be granted for taking care of child need during exam or illness. There is a specific mention of during for this purpose. In that can can the child care leave be granted for 5 months when an employee submits timetable for exam which is scheduled in May and the child goes to college. How to process such case.

Sunita
21-02-2011, 11:16 AM
A clarification is sought from senior members. The child Care leave rules clearly states that it should be granted for taking care of child need during exam or illness. There is a specific mention of during for this purpose. In that can can the child care leave be granted for 5 months when an employee submits timetable for exam which is scheduled in May and the child goes to college. How to process such case