Chander Mohan Jain v. N.K Bagrodia Public School & Ors.

Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioner Chander Mohan Jain, a Post Graduate Teacher employed at respondent No. 1, N.K. Bagrodia Public School, applied for paternity leave by Annexure-A. Respondent No.1 responded indicating the school had not adopted any facility for paternity leave and that the matter was under consideration, advising the petitioner to take leave under existing rules. Respondent No.3, the Director of Education, filed a counter stating that the petitioner is entitled to paternity leave as per CCS (Leave Rules), 1972, and that unaided recognized schools are governed by the Director of Education under DSEAR, 1973, with rules applied similarly to Government Schools of Delhi. Counsel for respondent No.1 orally stated that, in view of respondent No.3's stand, paternity leave would be granted to the petitioner as admissible under the Rules. The court disposed of the petition on that undertaking and made no order as to costs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to paternity leave.
2. Whether CCS (Leave Rules), 1972 apply to employees of unaided recognized public schools governed under DSEAR, 1973.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Position

• The petitioner applied for paternity leave (Annexure-A).

Respondent No.1 (N.K. Bagrodia Public School)

• Position taken: the school had not adopted any facility for paternity leave; the matter was under consideration; advised petitioner to take leave under existing rules.

Respondent No.3 (Director of Education)

• Position taken in counter: the petitioner is entitled to paternity leave as per CCS (Leave Rules), 1972; unaided recognized schools operate under the control of the Director of Education per DSEAR, 1973, and rules are applied in unaided recognized public schools as in Government Schools of Delhi.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted the initial refusal or non-adoption stance of respondent No.1. It observed that the central question of entitlement to paternity leave did not require adjudication because respondent No.3 (Director of Education) accepted that the petitioner was entitled to paternity leave under CCS (Leave Rules), 1972 and clarified applicability to unaided recognized schools under DSEAR, 1973. In view of the Director's stand and the oral undertaking by counsel for respondent No.1 that paternity leave would be granted as admissible under the Rules, the court disposed of the petition without further analysis.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

Direct effect: the petition is disposed of on the undertaking that paternity leave will be granted to the petitioner as admissible under the applicable rules. No costs were imposed. The opinion does not purport to lay down a binding precedent beyond the resolution of this matter between the parties.