Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Saroj Kumari – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ A No. 2211 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2023
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Sanction of maternity leave - Order - Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated passed by Respondent No. 4, District Basic whereby and whereunder sanction of maternity leave has been turned down by stating that “after child birth ML is not allowed and now are eligible for CLL according rule” and “for ML out of date now you can apply for CCL - For Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, have vehemently opposed prayer made in petition and submits that ratio laid down by this Court (supra) heavily relied upon by counsel for petitioner is not applicable to case at hand - Petitioner is posted as Headmistress at Primary School, Block, District Etah on institution run by Board of Basic Education, U.P. Prayagraj - Service conditions of petitioner are governed by provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 - Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was admitted in hospital and gave birth to a girl child and after discharge from hospital, she immediately applied for maternity leave through online for period - Above orders have been impugned in the instant writ petition - It is also contended that Child Care Leave is distinct to the maternity benefit and operate in different fields and relegating petitioner to avail Child Care Leave is totally unwarranted - It is also contended that the respondents have also stopped the salary of petitioner since November and December, 2022 which is also unwarranted. [Para 13]
Finding of Court : From perusal of Preamble of Act, Section 5 (1), third proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 5, sub-section 4 of Section 5, it is more than apparent that Maternity Benefit can be extended even after birth of a child - It can even be extended in a case of a legal adoption of a child or less than three months - Only restriction being that the maternity leave may not be granted for entire 180 days or 26 weeks - Further, in opinion of Court, availability of Child Care Leave to the petitioner or grant of same cannot dis-entitle the petitioner for grant of maternity benefit. Maternity benefit and Child Care Leave both operate in different fields and are mutually exclusive - Child Care Leave can be availed of not only at point when child is born but at any subsequent period - Both constitute distinct entitlements - It is a harsh reality that but for such provisions many women would be compelled by social circumstances to give up work on birth of child if they are not granted leave and other facilitative measures - No employer can perceive child birth as detracting from purpose of employment. Child birth has to be construed in context of employment as a natural incident of life and provisions of Maternity Benefit Act are required to be construed in that perspective - Court is of opinion that District Basic Education Officer, Etah while rejecting claim of petitioner has overlooked provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - In view of above, impugned orders dated passed by Respondent No. 4, District Basic is not sustainable in eyes of law and are set aside.
Result : Writ petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 14.11.2022 and 25.11.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 4, District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah whereby and whereunder the sanction of maternity leave has been turned down by stating that “after child birth ML is not allowed and now you are eligible for CLL according rule” and “for ML out of date now you can apply for CCL.”
3. At the very outset, Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similar controversy, as raised in the present petition, has already been allowed by this Court in a bunch of writ petition, leading amongst them being Writ (A) No. 9535 of 2022 (Smt. Anupam Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Others).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the present writ petition may also be decided in terms of the aforesaid decision dated 21.10.2022 passed in Writ (A) No. 9535 of 2022 (Smt. Anupam Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Others).
5. Shri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents as well as Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, have vehemently opposed the prayer made in the petition and submits that ratio laid down by this Court in Smt. Anupam Yadav (supra) heavily relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the case at hand.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. Before the Court proceeds to examine the case of the petitioner on merits, it deems it appropriate to clear the mist that has engulfed the parties regarding the applicability of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Anupam Yadav (supra).
8. In the case of Smt. Anupam Yadav (supra) and the connected petitions the challenge laid was to order passed by the competent authority/District Basic Education Officer whereby and whereunder the sanction of maternity leave for 180 days was turned down by stating that the same was not admissible or on the ground that the period of 02 years had not elapsed from the date of expiry of the last maternity leave granted to the petitioners under the proviso to Rule 153 (1) of Chapter XIII of the U.P. Fundamental Rules in Financial Handbook Volume-II, Part 2 to 4. The moot question was regarding the applicability of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. There was no dispute with regard to the applicability of Fundamental Rules i.e. Rule 153 (1) of Chapter XIII of U.P. Fundamental Rules in Financial Handbook Volume-II, Part 2 to 4. The parties were at variance only with regard to the applicability of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The Court after appreciating the respective contentions of the learned counsels for the parties and considering the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as also the relevant provisions of the Financial Hand Book, particularly Rule 153 observed that the State Government exercising powers under Section 28 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 had already adopted the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 for the benefits of its employees. Once the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 had been adopted by the State of U.P. then the Act of 1961 would apply with full force irrespective of the provisions contained in the Financial Handbook which were held to be merely executive instructions and subsidiary to the legislation made by the Parliament. The Court thus held that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 would prevail over the provisions of the Financial Handbook and consequently, the provisions of Rule 153 (I) of the Financial Handbook Volume II to IV were to be read down with regard to the admissibilit
Point of Law : Act of 1961 was enacted to secure women's right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women with as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother a....
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 does not apply to government servants, and state policy restricting maternity leave for the third child is valid.
The Maternity Benefit Act ensures that all female employees, regardless of their employment status, are entitled to maternity benefits, reinforcing the principle of non-discrimination.
The central legal point established is the entitlement of female employees to 180 days of maternity leave as per the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and international conventions, irrespective of their ....
Government employees are not entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and the 3rd proviso to Rule 153 of the Fundamental Rules restricts the grant of maternity leave within ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
