The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a female government servant to maternity leave under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972, emphasizing a purposive interpretation to facilitate women's continuance in the workplace and protect unconventional family structures.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 16 March 2021 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

3. The appellant was, at the material time, working on the post of Nursing Officer in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research¹[“PGIMER”] at Chandigarh since her appointment on 25 November 2005. On 18 February 2014, the appellant married Amir Singh. The spouse of the appellant was married before his marriage to the appellant, but his former wife passed away on 16 February 2013. From his first marriage, he has two children, a male child born on 1 February 2001 and a female child born on 3 March 2005. The appellant filed an application on 4 May 2015, requesting the authorities at PGIMER to enter the names of the two children born from the first marriage of her spouse in the official service record.

4. The appellant had her first biological child on 4 June 2019 from her marriage. On 6 June 2019, she applied for maternity leave for the period from 27 June 2019 to 23 December 2019 in terms of Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972.²[“Rules of 1972”] The authorities at PGIMER sought a clarification on 3 July 2019 regarding the fact that the spouse of the appellant had two surviving children from his first marriage. The appellant submitted a detailed reply on 24 July 2019. The request of the appellant for the grant of maternity leave was rejected on 3 September 2019 on the ground that she had two surviving children and had availed of child care leave earlier for the two children born from the first marriage of her spouse. Consequently, maternity leave for the child borne by her, considered as her third child, was found to be inadmissible in terms of the Rules of 1972. By an office order dated 21 January 2020, her leave for the period from 30 May 2019 to 3 June 2019; 4 June 2019 to 27 October 2019; 27 October 2019 to 6 November 2019; and 7 November 2019 to 31 November 2019 was treated as earned leave, medical leave, half pay leave, and extraordinary leave respectively. The period of extraordinary leave was not counted towards increments in the scale of Rs. 9300-34800 under FR-26(ii) of the Fundamental Rules, Volume-I.

5. Aggrieved by the decisions dated 3 September 2019 and 21 January 2020 of the administrative authorities at PGIMER, the appellant moved the Central Administrative Tribunal³[“CAT”] at its Chandigarh Bench in OA No 155 of 2020. By a judgment dated 29 January 2021, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the OA, holding:

“10. [....] It is, thus, clear that the maternity leave can be granted to a female government servant only if she has less than two surviving children. As per her own request, the applicant has already shown her two children from the first marriage of her husband as her children and she has been availing benefit in their respect on many occasions earlier and subsequent to her marriage. Therefore, for all practical purposes and as far as respondent department is concerned, she has already two surviving children and she is taking benefit for them from the respondent department by way of Child Care Leave and other benefits.

11. In view of the above, any child born to her now will be considered only as a third child and cannot be taken as the first child. It may be true that Viren Partap Singh is first child born to her after her first pregnancy with her husband. But, of her own choice, the applicant has already got the names of other two children from her husband's first marriage entered in the record of the office as her children and is availing benefits on their behalf including Child Care Leave. The Rule position is clear and for all practical purposes, the applicant has two surviving children. As such, any child born to her now can only be considered as third child.

12. In view of the above, the decision of the respondents to reject her maternity leave is correct even though it may be first mate