A mother denied child care leave, suspended days before retirement

Not many Government employees are suspended a fortnight before their retirement. But if Rajiv Mehrotra, Chairman cum Managing Director of RITES, a Government of India company with headquarters in Gurugram(Gurgaon), is to be believed, Saphla Rani (60) was suspended earlier this month for remaining on unauthorised leave for the past 10-12 years.

Rani and her husband, Brij, rubbish the allegation and claim that they have her salary slips and other documents to prove that she has not only been working but was also paid by the company. An indignant Brij Lal, a retired Government employee himself, asks, “My wife was offered three promotions in her 31-year career in the company, the last promotion was offered to her in 2015; why would they do it if she had been absent for 11 years?”

At the heart of the ‘dispute’ is the denial by the company of her request for ‘ Child Care Leave’ (CCL). A late mother, Saphla Rani delivered a still-born child when she was 54 but went on to deliver a premature baby three years later in February, 2014. The child Vairaj is now three years old.

The couple had to spend all their savings and even mortgage their properties to visit several fertility clinics in India and abroad before becoming parents for the first time. In 2014 the media hailed Vairaj as the ‘ miracle child’ and reports and interviews with the couple appeared in the media.

The couple rely upon a Supreme Court ruling delivered in August, 2014 in which the apex court upheld the mother’s right to avail of uninterrupted ‘ Child Care Leave’ up to two years.

In-vitro-Fertilisation treatment, the couple point out, is both complicated and painful. Few women are encouraged to have it after the failure of the first 10 cycles. Brij Lal and Saphla claim to have persisted and went through 15 failed cycles before succeeding in having the child.

“Our son was a premature baby and was kept on life support system for a long time,” recalls Brij Lal (71). “During the IVF treatment, my wife had to take 19 tablets a day besides three injections. What my wife has been demanding is her right. Why is she being made to beg for the same?” he wonders aloud.

But the RITES CMD told NH, “Ours is not a PSU and we do not have to go by Supreme Court rulings. This company has its own service rules. Our company doesn’t have a Child Care Leave Policy. We are not governed by central government rules.”

What appears to have irked Mehrotra are the representations the couple made to the Prime Minister, the Railway Minister and eventually to the National Commission for Women. Mehrotra said as much to the NH when he maintained, “She can’t get leave sanctioned by applying undue pressure on us. We know how to handle indisciplined employees.”

The suspension followed two communications from the NCW, first to the RITES CMD and the second to the Cabinet Secretary and which observed, “ … the Commission is of the view that basic intention of CCL to women employees is to take care of their child at a time of need. By denying the same, the very purpose of the policy is failed ... NCW feels that any entitlement that are due to her while in service as per government guidelines on the subject, which if not provided during service period, could generally be deemed to accrue to her even after retirement…”

Brij Lal says he had approached the CMD ‘with folded hands’ but was shown the door. Railway Minister Suresh Prabhu refused to hear him out saying that as minister he was not expected to entertain grievances related to service matters and leave.

The RITES CMD’s parting shot to the NH was that the company would prefer to see the couple in court. “We can’t explain everything to everyone,” he said curtly.

The company may or may not be technically or legally right. But there is little doubt that it failed to handle the case with sensitivity expected from companies that never tire of publicising their ‘corporate social responsibility’.