CASE: Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
BENCH:
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud
Justice J.B. Pardiwala
LAWS INVOLVED:
- Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972
- Rule 43-C: Grants up to 730 days of Child Care Leave (CCL) during the entire service for female government servants with minor children.
- DoPT Office Memorandum dated 3 March 2010:
Extends the CCL benefit for mothers of differently-abled children up to the child’s age of 22 years.
- Constitution of India
- Article 14: Equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
- Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex (supports gender justice in employment).
- Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation.
- Article 21: Protects the right to life and personal liberty — interpreted to include dignity, autonomy, and access to livelihood.
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016
Section 80:
Empowers the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to:
- Monitor implementation of the Act.
- Review policy gaps.
- Recommend remedial measures — especially to safeguard rights of children with disabilities and their caregivers (including parental leave provisions).
FACTS
Shalini Dharmani is an assistant professor at Government College, Nalagarh. She is the mother of a fourteen-year-old son who has Osteogenesis Imperfecta, a rare genetic disorder that requires ongoing medical care. Because of her son’s condition, she used all her approved leave and contacted the college on 16 November 2018. She requested Child Care Leave (CCL) under Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, as well as the Union Government’s memorandum from 3 March 2010, which allows CCL up to age 22 for differently abled children. However, she was told that Himachal Pradesh had not adopted Rule 43-C, so her request was denied. She then filed a writ petition under Article 226 in the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The court dismissed her petition on 23 April 2021, stating that the state had removed Rule 43-C. Following that, she filed Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 16864/2021) before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether Dr. Dharmani can receive CCL under Rule 43-C, even though the State has not adopted it.
- Whether the Union’s extension of CCL to age 22 for differently abled children applies, and whether the State is required to implement it.
- Whether denying CCL breaks constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21.
- Whether the State’s policy needs to be revised to meet obligations for parents of children with disabilities, considering the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPWD Act”).
CONTENTIONS/ ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
Dharmani argued that Rule 43‑C should be used because it allows up to 730 days of paid CCL for women employees with young children. This rule is further supported by the 2010 DoPT memo, which extends assistance until age 22 for children with disabilities. She claimed that not granting CCL violated her rights under Articles 14 and 15, which cover equality and non‑discrimination, Article 21, which addresses the right to a life of dignity, and Article 19(1)(g), which protects the right to practice a profession or trade. Additionally, the RPWD Act places obligations on the State to support families caring for children with disabilities.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:
The State argued that because Rule 43-C was formally removed from the Himachal Pradesh service rules, the petitioner has no legal claim. They pointed out that States are not required to follow Union leave rules, even if there is a central office memorandum. Therefore, the denial was lawful according to state service rules.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court (CJI Chandrachud and J. Pardiwala) decided the following:
Although Rule 43-C had been removed by Himachal Pradesh, making it nonexistent in state rules, the petition raises a constitutional issue for mothers of differently abled children.
The Court stressed that women’s participation in the workforce is not a privilege; it is a constitutional right protected under Articles 14, 15, and 21, along with Article 19(1)(g). As a responsible employer, the State must address the specific needs of women. Denying child care leave (CCL) could force mothers to leave their jobs, which undermines equality and dignity.
The Court recognized the constitutional goals of the RPWD Act, noting that Section 80 empowers the State Commissioner to assess rights protections and create remedial policy. The Commissioner’s affidavit revealed that no state policy exists for parents of children with disabilities. Therefore, the State’s failure to act violates the aims of the RPWD Act.
Even after the rule was removed, the state must rethink its CCL policy, especially concerning the RPWD Act’s goals. The Court then directed the formation of a Committee led by the Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh, with the Commissioner under the RPWD Act and the Secretaries of Social Welfare and Women & Child Development involved. The Committee was to consult Union secretaries and submit a report by 31 July 2024. Until the final orders are issued, Dharmani’s request for leave should be viewed positively.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Formal deletion does not equal constitutional compliance. The removal of Rule 43-C from state service rules was seen as enough to deny statutory entitlement. However, the High Court did not investigate whether this deletion conflicts with constitutional obligations under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21. The Supreme Court addressed this issue by treating it as a matter of substantive constitutional rights, rather than just statutory silence.
Failure to integrate RPWD Act obligations: The State did not bring its leave policy in line with the RPWD Act. The Act requires the State to actively support the rights of persons with disabilities. Without this policy, the purpose of the law is undermined. The High Court made a mistake by disregarding the RPWD Act completely.
Gender-blind approach: The earlier rulings viewed childcare and leave as policy choices, not as constitutional responsibilities. The Supreme Court correctly stated that the unequal caregiving demands based on gender need clear support from the State; without it, equality loses meaning.
INFERENCE
This decision marks an important moment in Indian gender and disability law. It confirms that Child Care Leave is not just an administrative issue but a constitutional right that supports women’s ability to work, especially for those caring for children with disabilities. The ruling addresses gaps in laws and constitutional requirements by insisting on changes in state policies that follow the RPWD Act.
The Supreme Court emphasizes that official rules cannot override constitutional values. Even though Rule 43-C was removed at the state level, the Court insists that practical alternatives must exist to uphold key rights: equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), dignity (Article 21), and the right to work (Article 19(1)(g)).
On the policy front, the directive to form a committee that includes multiple departments and sets a deadline ensures accountability and discourages passive judicial oversight. The Committee’s collaboration with both state and union secretaries reflects a cooperative approach to implementing leave policies in line with national disability rights standards.
Additionally, this ruling sets a precedent. States without Child Care Leave or policies sensitive to disabilities may now face similar constitutional challenges. The judgment highlights that state obligations under the Directive Principles and the RPWD Act carry legal weight when fundamental rights are involved.
As a practical matter, pending further orders, the authorities must seriously consider Shalini Dharmani’s leave application. She was reportedly granted 93 days after the State issued its Rules on 31 July 2024 under Article 309, though there are still gaps compared to the Union scheme. The Court upheld her right to seek additional benefits.
In summary, Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh is a pivotal acknowledgment that the caregiving responsibilities disproportionately shouldered by women—especially mothers of children with disabilities—must be supported by state policies that comply with constitutional standards, rather than ignored for the sake of administrative ease or the removal of formal rules.
CITATIONS
Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., SLP (C) No. 16864/2021 (S.C. Apr. 22, 2024) (order), reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 653.
Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, (2022) (S.C.) (Chandrachud, J. & Bopanna, J.), holding that atypical families are entitled to equal protection under Article 14 and benefits under social-welfare legislation.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 (observing that constitutional mandate and Directive Principles must inform judicial interpretation).
Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, Rule 43‑C (“Child Care Leave” provision); Office Memorandum, DoPT (Mar. 3, 2010) extending entitlement to mothers of differently‑abled children up to 22 years of age.