The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 aims to provide maternity benefits to all women working in establishments, without discrimination based on the nature of appointment. The Act also provides for the appointment of inspectors and enforcement measures to ensure compliance.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

The instant appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5654 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the part of the order, which has been issued by the learned Single Judge by way of mandamus directing the Chief Secretary of the State to ensure that a complaint is filed against the erring officer by the Inspector appointed under the Maternity Act and if any Inspector has not been appointed then by the Secretary of the Department before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and after doing so, the report be sent to this court within two weeks, is under challenge.

2. The appeal has been filed when the writ petition is lying pending for adjudication of right of the litigant concerned, the petitioner herein.

3. It appears from the pleading made in the writ petition that the writ petitioner is working under the Rural Development Department in the capacity of contractual worker. She, while working, as such, raised a claim for maternity benefits under the provision of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961). But the said claim was rejected vide decision taken as contained in memo no.3665 dated 17.10.2022.

4. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the rejection of the said claim, has approached to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5654 of 2022.

5. The issue/ground has been raised by the conferment of right upon the writ petitioner by virtue of enactment of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

6. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the provision as contained under Section 21 read with Section 23 of the Act, 1961 has passed a direction upon the Chief Secretary of the State to ensure that a complaint is filed against the erring officer by the Inspector appointed under the Maternity Act and if any Inspector has not been appointed then by the Secretary of the Department before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and after doing so, the report be sent to this court within two weeks, the said part of the order is under challenge in this appeal.

7. Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III appearing for the State-appellants has only argued by taking the ground that the benefit under the Act, 1961 is not admissible to the contractual appointees.

8. While on the other hand, Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner who has appeared on being called upon, as would appear from the order dated 06.01.2023, has submitted by referring the intent and object of the Act, 1961, whereby and whereunder, no discrimination has been carved out based upon the nature of appointment.

9. The very object of the Act, 1961 is to extend the maternity benefit, irrespective of the nature of appointment, even though, the concerned employee/worker is working in the establishment.

10. Further, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the issue that in case of non-disbursement of the benefit under the Act, 1961 which is a penal offence, and as such, in terms of Section 23 of the Act, 1961, the cognizance is also being taken on complaint being made by the Inspector.

11. The learned Single Judge has passed the said order of institution of the complaint by taking into consideration the very object and intent of the Act, 1961 and as such, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error, hence, the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

13. The issue which requires consideration in this case, i.e.,

“Whether the direction to lodge complaint be said to be unjustified in a case where the maternity benefit if denied to a contractual employee working in the State?”

14. The writ petition, since, is pending for its consideration and as such, this Court deems it fit and proper no