Allahabad High Court
Dr. Neena Raizada vs State Of U.P.& 3 Ors. on 18 April, 2018
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Ifaqat Ali Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43330 of 2013
Petitioner :- Dr. Neena Raizada
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Nigam
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Nigam, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioner has sought mandamus commanding respondent to grant benefit of maternity leave benefit to petitioner.
3. She was employed on contract basis as Lecturer (Anaesthesia) in J. K. Cancer Institute at Kanpur, vide appointment letter dated 31.07.2009. The appointment was renewed from time to time and petitioner worked till 27.10.2014. She had applied for maternity leave w.e.f. 01.05.2010 to 25.07.2010, vide application dated 26.04.2010 (Annexure No. 2).
4. It is stated by petitioner that maternity leave benefit has been declined by respondents on the ground that said benefit is available only to regular government employees and not employees appointed on contractual basis, hence this writ petition.
5. A Government Order Dated 22.01.2015 has been brought before us clarifying Government Orders Dated 15.12.2008 and 07.06.2010 in respect of contractual appointees in medical offices, wherein in para 3 it has been said that maternity leave benefit shall be applicable to contractual appointees (female officials) as applicable to regular government employees. Para 3 of the said Government Order reads as under :-
"3& foRr osru vk;ksx vuqHkkx&2 ds 'kklukns'k la[;k&os0vk0&2&[email protected]&54¼,e½2008 Vh0lh0 fnukad 30-8-2013 ds izLrj&¼5½ esa of.kZr izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj lafonk fpfdRlk f'k{kdksa dks o"kZ esa 20 fnu dk vkdfLed vodk'k rFkk efgyk deZpkfj;ksa dh izlwfr vodk'k jktdh; deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkkafr vuqeU; fd;k tk;A
3- As per provisions provided in para (5) of the G.O. No. Ve. Aa.-2-562/10-54 (M) 2008 T.C. Dated 30.8.2013, of the Finance Pay Commission Anubhag-2, 20 days of casual leave in a year for the contractual Medical Teachers and maternity leave for women employees be allowed as per the case of government employees."
(emphasis added)
6. Moreover, a Division Bench judgment of this Court has also been brought before us Dr. Shikha Jain vs. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko. & Ors. (Service Bench No. 1206 of 2012) decided on 29.08.2012 observing that there is no reason to deny maternity leave benefit to contractual employees / honorarium employees, since benefit of maternity leave cannot change with nature of employment. Court has relied on Supreme Court's judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster roll) and another, (2000) 3 SCC 224. Relevant observation made by this Court in the judgment dated 29.08.2012 (supra) reads as under :-
"The petitioner has a right to avail the maternity leave, which is applicable to regularly employed lecturers in the Government Degree Colleges.
Although the respondents have not yet taken a decision on the leave application, we do not find that the objection taken by the Standing Counsel, that a contractual employee/honorarium employee is not entitled to maternity leave, is justified. The purpose of the maternity leave does not change with the nature of employment. It is concerned with human rights of the women. The employers and courts are bound under the constitutional scheme, guaranteeing right to life, including right to live with dignity and to protect the health of both the mother and child to preserve these rights."
(emphasis added)
7. In view of aforesaid judgment as also Government Order dated 22.01.2015, we are of the opinion that denial of maternity leave benefit to petitioner is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
8. In the result writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to allow maternity leave benefit to petitioner as applicable to regular government employees and pass consequential order in this regard within a period of three months from date of production of certified copy of this order, before the authorities concerned.
Order Date :- 18.4.2018
sailesh
