Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
Dr. Sangita - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents - Respondent
CWP-6866 of 2020
Decided On : 22-09-2023
Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Employees are entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and even if the contractual employment expires during the maternity leave, the employer is obligated to extend the leave and pay the full maternity benefits.
Headnote:
Maternity Leave - Contractual Employment - Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Civil Appeal No. 5010 of 2023 titled as Dr. Kavita Yadav vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department - Section 5(2), Section 12(2)(a) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractual Ayurvedic Medical Officer, applied for maternity leave without getting it sanctioned. The respondents refused to allow her to continue in service after the expiry of 180 days of maternity leave.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the settled principle of law established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner maternity leave and salary for the said period.
Issues: Claim for maternity leave and continuity in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner was entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and the settled principle of law established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The respondents were obligated to grant the petitioner maternity leave and salary for the said period.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner maternity leave and salary for the said period. The claim for continuity in service was disposed of as not pressed.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J.
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the benefit of salary for the maternity leave for a period of 180 days with the further prayer that she be allowed to continue in service.
2. Certain facts may be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.
3. The respondents advertised a post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Female) to be filled on contractual basis under the RBSK Scheme. The petitioner, who was fully eligible, applied for the said post and was selected and appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer vide appointment letter dated 19.08.2014. The appointment was for a particular tenure, which tenure was further extended. The last extension to continue in service available with the petitioner was upto 31.03.2019.
4. Petitioner, while in service, applied for extraordinary leave from 28.12.2018 to 25.02.2019. As per the petitioner, the said letter was submitted but nothing is on record that the same was allowed. The petitioner submitted her joining report on 26.02.2019 and on the same date she applied for maternity leave for a period of 180 days. Without getting the said leave sanctioned, the petitioner again availed the said maternity leave.
5. After the expiry of 180 days, the petitioner came to join back the services but she was not allowed to do so on the ground that as the petitioner was not performing her duties since December 2018 onwards and there was no leave sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and the term of the petitioner had already expired on 31.03.2019, the respondents had already issued an advertisement again in pursuance to which a selection has already been done.
6. As the petitioner was not being allowed to join the duties, the present petition was filed claiming the benefit of maternity leave and continuity in service.
7. It may be noticed that though two reliefs are being sought in the present petition but at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only pressing her claim for the grant of salary for maternity leave period and is not pressing her claim for continuing in service.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner initially applied for the grant of extraordinary leave even while working on a term appointment in December 2019 and further without getting leave sanctioned, she availed the same and upon joining on 26.02.2019, the petitioner again submitted a maternity leave on the same day and without getting it sanctioned, she again availed the same which shows that the petitioner is not interested in performing her duties, hence, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of maternity leave is not made out though, learned counsel for the respondents conceded the fact that the term of the petitioner to continue in service had an approval upto 31.03.2019.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
10. Though, a leave can only be availed after getting the same sanctioned from the authorities concerned but as the petitioner was claiming the benefit of maternity leave, which the petitioner is entitled under law keeping in view the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as well as the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5010 of 2023 titled as Dr. Kavita Yadav vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and others, decided on 17.08.2023, the respondents were under obligation to consider the same and pass appropriate order, when the said application was made on 26.02.2019 during the subsistence of the appointment of the petitioner as Ayurvedic Medical Officer. Hence, once the petitioner was entitled for maternity leave under the Act coupled with the settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore, the same cannot be declined by the respondents.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submits that within a period of one month, fro
