IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that maternity leave regulations should be interpreted liberally to support women's rights, emphasizing that eligibility criteria should consider only children born during the service period.

JUDGMENT

Jitendra Jain, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petition is heard finally.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek to challenge communications dated 28th January 2014 and 31st March 2014 issued by Respondent No.2, whereby Petitioner No.2's application for maternity leave benefit is rejected on the ground that Petitioner No.2 is having more than two surviving children and hence is not eligible for the grant of maternity leave as per AAI Leave Regulations 2003.

Brief facts:-

3. The Petitioner No.2 married Mr. K. Raja Armugam and on 18th July 1997 gave birth to one child from the said wedlock. However, on 6th December 2000, Mr. K. Raja Armugam passed away and in his place, pursuant to an application by Petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment, she was appointed by Respondent No.2 on compassionate ground as Junior Attendant on 24th February 2004.

4. On 1st July 2008, Petitioner No.2 remarried one Mr. Shyam Sandal. Out of the second wedlock, she gave birth to two children. On 27th June 2009, Petitioner No.2 had her first child and thereafter the second child was born on 3rd September 2012.

5. On delivering her second child from wedlock with Mr. Shyam Sandal, the Petitioner No.2 applied to Respondent No.2 for Maternity Leave Benefit by applications dated 3rd September 2012 and 19th December 2013.

6. The aforesaid application came to be rejected by Respondent No.2 vide communications dated 28 th January 2014 and 31st March 2014 on the ground that Petitioner No.2 was having more than two surviving children and, therefore, was not eligible for grant of maternity leave as per AAI Leave Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred as 2003 Regulation'). It is on this backdrop that the Petitioner No.2 through Petitioner No.1 is before us challenging the said communications.

Submissions of the Petitioners:-

7. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the 2003 Regulation would not be applicable to Petitioner No.2, since after being appointed, she gave birth to only two children. The first child born from the wedlock with K. Raja Armugam was prior to her being appointed with Respondent No.2. The Petitioners submitted that looking at the objective of grant of maternity leave and the fact that she did not avail the maternity leave while giving birth to the first child on 27th June 2009 born from wedlock with Mr. Shyam Sandal and subsequent to her being appointed by Respondent No.2, the Respondents are not justified in rejecting the maternity leave benefit application. The Petitioners relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Khatja Umama Vs. The District Educational Officer, Erode District & Anr., Writ Petition No.28293 of 2022 dtd. 06.12.2022.

Submissions of the Respondents:-

8. Per contra, the Respondents submitted that on a plain reading of Maternity Leave Regulations, it is clear that since Petitioner No.2 was having two surviving children at the time of giving birth to third child, therefore, she is not eligible for the said maternity leave. The Respondents submitted that for the purpose of the 2003 Regulations, it is the number of children born to the Petitioner No.2 which is to be seen. The Petitioner No.2 being biological mother of two surviving children at the time of giving birth to third child, she is not eligible for the said maternity leave benefit. The Respondent No.2 relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in the case of R Yasota Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu & Ors., WP/23983/2022 & W.M.P/22964/2022 dtd. 14.08.2023

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondents and with their assistance have perused the documents annexed to the petition.

Analysis and Conclusion: -

10. The Petitioner No.2 is an employee of Respondent No.2-AAI. On 13th June 2003, Respondent No.1 approved Airport Authority of India (Leave) Regulations 2003 (hereinafter referred as 2003 Regulation'). The said regulations we