Recently, the division judge bench of the Madras High Court held that the maternity period has to be counted as part of the bond period, while emphasizing that Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner/Appellant had obtained her MBBS degree in the year 2014, and she was allotted a seat in the MS course in the fourth respondent college in the academic year 2016-17. As per the prospectus for the admission of post graduate degree in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges 2016-19 session, the candidate must sign a bond for a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs with an undertaking that he/she would serve the Government of Tamil Nadu for a period not less than two years and the candidate was also required to submit her educational certificates and the Petitioner signed the bond. Thereafter, she was appointed as Assistant Surgeon at Thittakudi Government Hospital, and the appellant reported for duty and served in the said hospital for twelve months. Later, she went on maternity leave. Since she had served the government only for twelve months and not for twenty-four months of bond service, the respondents declined to return her original certificates. The writ petition was filed for directing the fourth respondent to return her educational certificates; however, the same was dismissed by the learned single judge. Aggrieved by this, the present writ appeal has been filed.
Issue before the court:
Whether the period of maternity leave can be construed as bond service.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the question as to whether the period of maternity leave can be construed as bond service is no longer res integra and relied upon the judgment titled Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while relying upon the various provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 held that
“Section 5 of the said Act holds that every woman shall be entitled to the payment of maternity benefit. Section 12 forbids the employer from dismissing or discharging an employee when she absents herself from work in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 27 of the Act states that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or agreement or contract of service.”
The Court noted that, as per the condition, the appellant has to serve the government for a period of two years; however, the condition has to give way to the rights conferred on women under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
The Court furthermore noted that “Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21. The appellant no doubt is not a government employee. She is only obliged to render bond service to the Government of Tamil Nadu for a period of two years. But a regular State government employee is entitled to avail maternity leave for twelve months as per the amended Service Rules.”
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that “the appellant is also entitled to the very same treatment applicable to any government employee. The fact that the appellant was only in the service of the government without being a regular employee is irrelevant. When the fundamental right of the appellant is involved, she is entitled to the protective umbrella of not only Article 21 but also Article 14.”
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the writ appeal.
Case title: Dr.E.Krithikaa V. The State of Tamil Nadu
Coram: Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Justice K. Rajasekar
Case No.: W.A.(MD)No.860 of 2023 AND C.M.P.(MD)No.6922 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr.U.Venkatesh
Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and 2: Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader.
Advocate for the Respondent no. 3: Mr.A.S.Vaigunth, Standing counsel.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
