IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

ON THE 25^th OF APRIL, 2023

WRIT PETITION No. 8755 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

SMT SEEMA NARWARIYA W/O SHRI ABHAY SINGH,

AGED

ABOUT

32

YEARS, OCCUPATION:

POST

LECTURER (GRADE-1) J C MILL HIGHER SECONDARY

SCHOOL GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI SAURABH SINGH TOMAR- ADVOCATE )

AND

1.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH

PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT

OF

SCHOOL

EDUCATION

VALLABH

BHAWAN

BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

THE ZILA PANCHAYAT, GWAIOR THROUGH ITS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DISTRICT GWALIOR

(MADHYA PRADESH)

3.

PRINCIPAL

J.C.

MILL

HIGHER

SECONDARY

SCHOOL BIRLA NAGAR DISTRICT GWALIOR

(MADHYA PRADESH)

4.

SMT. SONAM GUPTA (GUEST FACTULY) POSTED

IN J.C. MILL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL

BIRLA NAGAR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA

PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI NEELESH TOMAR- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

1

Signed by: CHANDNI

NARWARIYA

Signing time: 26-Apr-23

6:13:28 PM

Signature Not Verified

been preferred seeking following reliefs:-

(i) That, respondents may kindly be directed to

allow the petitioner to discharge her duties in the

respondent department with all consequential

benefits.

(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be further

directed to cancel the appointment of the

respondent no.4,

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court

deems fit in the facts and circumstances may also

kindly be granted.

(iv) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded.

The main grievance which appears from the contentions raised by the

counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner who had taken a maternity leave in

the month of December, 2022 and after a period of two months when she had

submitted her joining, she was not permitted to join rather she was directed to

come in the new session which would start from the month of July, 2023 and

the payment for aforesaid period was also not made which is in total derogation

of provisions of Maternity Benefit Act 1961. It has been submitted by the

counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 17 of the Maternity Act if any

payment is due to the employee then the grievance of the petitioner would be

heard by the inspector empowered under the aforesaid Section to adjudicate

upon and pass necessary orders and if the employee is not satisfy, there is a

provision of appeal before the Collector. But since the present order Annexure

P/4 has been passed in consonance with the directions of the Collector, the

petitioner had lost its right to approach the authorities i.e. the Inspector as well

as the Collector for demanding the payment for the period under which she was

on maternity leave and also the period under which there was a contract

2

Signed by: CHANDNI

NARWARIYA

Signing time: 26-Apr-23

6:13:28 PM

Signature Not Verified

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)

JUDGE

subsisting between the petitioner and the respondent no.3.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate, Shri Neelesh Tomar, submits

that from the Annexure P/4 it is reflected that the agreement of the petitioner has

not been terminated nor she has been removed from the service. It has been

just asked that since the academic session has already come to an end she may

approach again in the next academic session which is going to start in the month

of July, 2023 and if the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to the

payment for the period for which she was on maternity leave or during the

period of subsisting of the agreement, she may approach the concerned

Inspector as yet she has not approached the competent authority for redressal

of her grievance.

After hearing the counsels for the parties, this Court deems it fit to

relegate the petitioner to Inspector under the Maternity Act, 1961 by way of a

representation and demand the payment as per the agreement for the aforesaid

period