Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HIMA KOHLI, ASHA MENON, JJ.
Manisha Priyadarshini - Appellant
Versus
Aurobindo College - Evening & Ors. - Respondents
LPA 595 of 2019 & C.M.Applns.49913-14 of 2019
Decided On : 01-05-2020
For the Appellant :Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini and Ms. Aditi Agarwal, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rajinder Dhawan and Mr. B.S.Rana, Advocates, Mr. Mohinder J.S.Rupal, Advocate
Headnote:
Termination of Ad-Hoc Employment - Maternity Benefits - Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Article 226 - [TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT] - [MATERNITY BENEFITS] - [Maternity Benefit Act, 1961] - The court discussed the termination of the appellant's ad-hoc employment and her claim for maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The court highlighted the appellant's repeated requests for maternity leave and the college's refusal to extend her ad-hoc appointment, indicating a possible bias due to her maternity benefits claim. The court emphasized the principles of equality and protection of reproductive rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and the unfairness of penalizing a woman for choosing motherhood while employed. The court also applied the principle of 'last come, must go first' and found the college's actions arbitrary and unjustifiable, ordering the immediate reinstatement of the appellant to her ad-hoc position.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an ad-hoc Assistant Professor, requested maternity leave and subsequently faced termination of her employment. She filed a writ petition seeking maternity benefits and quashing of the termination letter. The college refused to extend her ad-hoc appointment, citing her unavailability for teaching due to pregnancy and childbirth.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the college's refusal to extend the appellant's ad-hoc appointment unjustified, highlighting the bias due to her maternity benefits claim. The court emphasized the protection of reproductive rights and equality principles under the Constitution of India, and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the appellant to her ad-hoc position.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of the appellant's ad-hoc employment, her claim for maternity benefits, and the college's refusal to extend her appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of equality and protection of reproductive rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and the principle of 'last come, must go first' to find the college's actions arbitrary and unjustifiable, ordering the immediate reinstatement of the appellant to her ad-hoc position.
Final Decision: The court set aside the termination order and directed the college to appoint the appellant forthwith to the post of Assistant Professor on an ad-hoc basis, emphasizing the protection of reproductive rights and equality principles under the Constitution of India. The court also imposed costs on the college for the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
ASHA MENON, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.08.2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed in limine, W.P.(C) 8518/2019 filed by the appellant/petitioner with the following prayers: -
(a) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing the Impugned letter of termination dated 29.05.2019 issued by the Respondent No.1 College:
(b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the Respondent No.1 College to reinstate the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor on Ad Hoc basis from 20.03.2019.
(c) Costs of the Petition be provided for.
2. The facts, as are relevant for the purposes of disposal of the present appeal, are that since 07.08.2019, the appellant/petitioner has been working as an ad-hoc Assistant Professor in different colleges affiliated with the respondent No.3/University of Delhi and finally, in the respondent No.1/Sri Aurobindo College-Evening, of which the respondent No.2 is the Principal. According to the appellant/petitioner, the routine practice adopted by the respondents No.1 & 2/College and other colleges affiliated to the respondent No.3/University was to renew the contractual appointment of ad-hoc professors every 120 days, by enforcing a notional or artificial break in service of one working day. The last renewal of the appellant/petitioner’s contract was done on 19.11.2018 from 19.11.2018 to 18.03.2019.
3. The appellant/petitioner claims to be the Senior-most ad-hoc Assistant Professor in the Department of English in the respondents No.1 & 2/College. She states that as she was expecting her first child on 22.02.2019, she had requested the respondents No.1 & 2/College for grant of maternity leave alongwith all other eligible benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and had specifically sought leave from 14.01.2019 till 24.05.2019, particularly, in view of the complications of pregnancy. This request was made by her vide letter dated 04.01.2019. Since no response was received thereto, she reiterated her request on 16.01.2019, seeking permission to proceed on maternity leave from 21.01.2019 onwards.
4. On 03.02.2019, the appellant/petitioner was blessed with a daughter prematurely. Since the respondents No.1 & 2/College impliedly rejected her representation for maternity leave by crediting a salary of only 18 days in her account, the appellant/petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No.3160/2019 on 20.03.2019, praying inter alia for grant of maternity leave as well as for quashing of the notification dated 11.10.2013, issued by the respondent No.3/University extending the benefit of maternity leave only to permanent teachers. She also sought a mandamus to the respondents No.1 & 2/College to extend maternity benefits to her.
5. The appellant/petitioner has averred that she reported back to the respondents No.1 & 2/College on 20.3.2019. On 26.03.2019, she reiterated her request for maternity leave. On 27.03.2019, she received a communication from the respondents No.1 & 2/College informing her that the college had not “forced” her to join duty and that she should also inform the college of the date when she “intended” to join, thus, indicating that she was still on their rolls. However, on 12.04.2019, the respondent No.3/University informed the respondents No.1 & 2/College that maternity leave benefit was not available to contractual employees, which information was in turn forwarded by them to the appellant/petitioner vide letters dated 16.04.2019 and 13.05.2019, thus, rejecting her request for grant of maternity leave.
6. The appellant/petitioner submits that on 14.05.2019, she had reiterated her willingness to re-
