Maternity leave is a legal right for female employees, and denial of such leave by the employer is unjustified under statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of respondents concerning Annexures P-1 to P-4 for sanctioning the 26 weeks maternity leave alongwith pay with all other financial benefits.

2. The case set up by the petitioner starts from his engagement as Book Keeper-cum-Receptionist on 07.04.2008 with respondent No.2-Haryana State Road and Bridges Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as respondent-Corporation), who was subsequently engaged as Clerk-cum- Computer Operator on 09.07.2009 thereafter, she was selected to the post of Clerk-cum- Computer Operator after following due process of law by way of interview held on 12.04.2010. It is also the assertion made in the present petition that on 30.08.2011, the petitioner served an advance notice for leaving the department on account of having selected in another department but she was not allowed to leave the office of the respondent-Corporation. Thereafter, on 27.09.2011, she was taken to the post of Junior Accountant (Tally) and while working as such, an application seeking Maternity Leave was moved and she was granted three months leave on 26.12.2012.

3. The petitioner also submits that after availing the Maternity Leave, she joined back the duties on 26.03.2013 but on 28.03.2013 her services were dispensed with stating that it is no more required and on her request she was allowed to work on the post of Clerk-cum-Computer Operator through service provider, to which she joined though under protest.

4. In the meantime, a policy was issued on 18.06.2014, as amended on 14.07.2014 to the effect that the services of such employees will be regularized who have completed the service of three years on contract basis as on 30.06.2014. The said policy was made applicable on the Boards, Corporation and other statutory bodies of the State Government. The petitioner for the second time had sought Maternity Leave for a period of 26 weeks along-with pay and gave birth to a baby boy on 23.01.2017. Thereafter, on 25.01.2017 another letter was sent to the respondent-Corporation for the grant of 26 weeks Maternity Leave along-with pay. The husband of the petitioner also stated to have sent e-mail to the respondent-Corporation on 11.04.2017 for grant of Maternity Leave along-with pay but in vain.

5. The instant petition has been preferred to urge that the petitioner is entitled for Maternity Leave as per Government Instructions dated 20.02.2014, which stipulates that a women employee in any establishment where workers strength is ten or more or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months and a woman must have actually worked in establishment of the employer for a period of not less than eight days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery to enable her to claim the benefit from the said employer. The said notification/policy of the Government of Haryana is in consonance with The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

6. The petitioner, thereafter, is stated to have joined the duties after 26 weeks in the Month of July 2017 but having grievance on account of neither sanctioning the Maternity Leave for 26 weeks nor paying the salary for that period despite her representation to the respondent-Corporation, has approached this Court by way of filing of the present petition.

7. Lastly, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner primarily on the strength of Instruction issued by the Finance Department, Government of Haryana letter No. 11/8/2014-3FR/11887 dated 04.08.2014.

8. After having issued notice of motion, respondent-Corporation is represented through Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate, who has filed reply contesting the claim raised by the petitioner and prays for dismissal of present petition on the ground that she was engaged through a service provider-respondent No