IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ramesh Ranganathan, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Alok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Smt. Tanuja Tolia - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondent
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 263 of 2019
Decided On : 24-07-2020
Child Care Leave - Contractual Employee - Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules (Financial Hand Book Vol II Part II to IV) Rule 81-B(1) read with subsidiary Rule157-A(i) - The court held that even a person employed on a contractual basis is entitled for child care leave, but with a rider. A contractual employee whose employment is only for one year, cannot be granted child care leave for 730 days. Such an employee can be granted paid child care leave for 31 days, on the same terms and principles as 'earned leave', as is given to other employees in G.O. dated 30.05.2011. The Government Order dated 30.05.2011 shall also be applicable for a contractual employee, but with limitations specified by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lady Ayurvedic doctor in State Medical and Health Services, Uttarakhand, filed a writ petition seeking child care leave (CCL) after her maternity leave. Her application was rejected by the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, citing a Government Order that CCL can only be given to a 'regular Government employee' and not to contractual employees. The matter was referred to a Full Bench to examine the correctness of the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that even a contractual employee is entitled to child care leave, but with limitations. It determined that a contractual employee whose employment is only for one year can be granted paid child care leave for 31 days, on the same terms and principles as 'earned leave', as given to other employees in G.O. dated 30.05.2011. The Government Order dated 30.05.2011 shall also be applicable for a contractual employee, but with limitations specified by the court.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether child care leave of 730 days can be granted to a person employed on a contractual basis only for a period of one year, and whether the court can issue mandatory guidelines, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing that such benefits be extended by the State Government to persons engaged on a contractual basis for a specified period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that child care leave should be for the same number of days as earned leave, which a regular employee gets in a year. It determined that a contractual employee whose employment is only for one year can be granted paid child care leave for 31 days, on the same terms and principles as 'earned leave', as given to other employees in G.O. dated 30.05.2011. The Government Order dated 30.05.2011 shall also be applicable for a contractual employee, but with limitations specified by the court.
Final Decision: The court held that even a contractual employee is entitled for child care leave, but with a rider. A contractual employee whose employment is only for one year, cannot be granted child care leave for 730 days. Such an employee can be granted paid child care leave for 31 days, on the same terms and principles as 'earned leave', as is given to other employees in G.O. dated 30.05.2011. The Government Order dated 30.05.2011 shall also be applicable for a contractual employee, but with limitations specified by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner, who is a lady Ayurvedic doctor in State Medical and Health Services, Uttarakhand. Her appointment though is not regular, but is on contractual basis, which is continuing since 2009. The contract which was for one year initially, has been periodically renewed or extended. The last extension was upto 28.02.2019 vide order dated 23.03.2018. As the petitioner was in the family way, she applied for her maternity leave, which was sanctioned to her from 08.04.2017 to 04.10.2017. After availing her maternity leave, the petitioner, however, did not join her service, but applied for Child Care Leave (from hereinafter referred to as the CCL). Her argument before the authorities was that in view of a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 99 of 2015 (Dr. Shanti Mehra Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2017 (1) U.D., 191), even a contractual employee is entitled for CCL for a period of 730 days. Her application, all the same, was rejected by an order dated 24.05.2019 passed by the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, where the reasons given while denying CCL to the petitioner are that the petitioner had applied for a child care leave, but in view of Government Order dated 30.05.2011 a child care leave can only be given to a “regular Government employee” and not to employees who are working on contractual basis, as their service conditions are given in their contract, where there is no mention of child care leave. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court.
2. The petitioner relied upon the order dated 15.12.2016 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 99 of 2015, wherein the Division Bench, inter alia, had held that even a female employee who is working on a contractual basis is entitled for child care leave of 730 days. These directions were as under:
3. When the matter came up before the Division Bench of this Court, argument by the State was that the total period of employment of the petitioner is for a period of twelve months i.e. 365 days, and therefore it is not possible to grant child care leave for 730 days. The Division Bench was also not in agreement with the order of the earlier Division Bench of this Court, which supported the case of the petitioner, and it observed:
4. It then referred the matter to a Full Bench for examining the correctness of the matter by formulating the two questions:-
(ii) Whether the High Court, in the absence of any legislation or a Rule in this regard having been framed by the State Government, can issue mandatory guidelines, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing that such benefits be extended by the State Government to persons eng
Doli Gogoi Vs. State of Assam (2017) 3 GauLR 247
Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya Vs. State of UP (2017) 6 AllLJ 454
Indu Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand and others
Mohini Jain (Miss) v. State of Karnataka and others
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and another
Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.