Point of Law: Learned Single Judge was right in directing reinstatement with 25% back wages and it also observed that the grant of full back wages would be appropriate remedy and also held that learned Single Judge has taken a liberal view as the respondent/employee was a contract employee.

ORDER :

“I chose motherhood ; the State chose to terminate me”, is the plea of the petitioner, lamenting that, the pendulum of her fate swung from the buoyance of hope to the fatigue of despair as she is terminated on the score that she opted to become a mother and had sought maternity leave.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts material for consideration of the lis are as follows:

The second respondent issued a notification inviting applications for the post of Project Information Officer on contract basis. Petitioner finding herself eligible applied, selected and was appointed as Project Information Officer on contract basis for a consolidated pay of Rs.17,000/-along with the traveling allowance of Rs.2,000/-per month with effect from 27.11.2009. The contract was being renewed from time to time on an annual basis and the latest of the renewal of such contract was on 01.04.2019 to be in operation upto 31.03.2020. The petitioner is thus in service for 10 years now albeit on contract basis.

3. During the subsistence of the aforesaid period of contract, the petitioner by an application dated 11.06.2019, sought for maternity leave. On the application given by the petitioner, a notice was issued on 25.06.2019, by the second respondent directing her to report to duties forthwith, despite her application seeking maternity leave. When the petitioner did not report back to duties, despite the notice on 25.06.2019, referring to the same, an order dated 29.08.2019 is passed terminating the service of the petitioner / canceling the contract entered into with the petitioner appointing her as a Project Information Officer / MIS Expert on the score that the petitioner remained absent. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioner.

4. Heard Sri Subramani M.A., learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the material on record.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that denial of maternity leave and terminating or cancellation of the employment of any employee on that ground which is the subject matter of the present writ petition is covered by the order of this Court in writ petition No.44563/2013 dated 05.09.2018, and the same is affirmed by the learned Division Bench in W.A.No.3259/2018. He would submit that the law being so clear, the second respondent could not have passed the order of termination/cancellation of contract, contrary to law. He would vehemently contend that this Court by an order dated 21.10.2020, referring to the judgment / order of the Apex Court as well as this Court on the issue which concerns in the present writ petition, passed a detailed interim order staying the impugned notice dated 29.08.2019, till the next date of hearing and the stay order is in operation even as on date. Despite the same the second respondent has not taken the petitioner back to duties.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate would vehemently argue and contend in defense of the impugned notice that the petitioner was a contract employee and contract itself gave a right to the second respondent to terminate her services at any point in time and seek to justify the notice impugned.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The issue that falls for my consideration is, whether the termination/cancellation of contract of the petitioner on the ground of the petitioner seeking maternity leave is justified?

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been working with the second respondent on contract basis, which is being renewed from time to time and the present contract in subsistence was in operation between 01.04.2019 and 30.03.2020. It is during the subsistence of this contract, the petitioner applied for leave on health grounds, though maternity was not the reason mentioned therein, it was ostensibly for the said r