Allahabad High Court
Annu Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondry ... on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64228
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6663 of 2023
Petitioner :- Annu Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondry Education Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jay Krishna Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 27.03.2023 whereby grant of maternity leave to petitioner for a period of six months has been rejected.
3. It has been submitted that by means of impugned order, application preferred by petitioner for grant of maternity leave has been rejected on the ground that it has been sought for a second time within a period of two years from grant of first maternity leave. It is submitted that aforesaid aspect has already been considered and adjudicated upon by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 passed in Service Single No.32394 of 2019; Smt. Richa Shukla vs. State of U.P. & Ors., which has attained finality since no appeal against it was filed.
4. Learned State Counsel has not been provided any instructions despite time having been granted.
5. A perusal of judgment passed in the case of Smt. Richa Shukla (supra) it makes it evident that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has clearly dealt with this aspect under the relevant provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 vis-a-vis Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook while holding that provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 would have precedents. The relevant portions of the judgment are as follows:-
"11. From perusal of Section 3(h) of 1961 Act, it clearly comes out that maternity benefit means the payment referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 5 of 1961 Act. Section 5 of 1961 Act provides that every woman shall be entitled to and an employer shall be liable for the payment of maternity benefit at a certain rate. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of 1961 Act provides that the maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be 26 weeks. Section 6 of 1961 Act provides that any woman employed in an establishment and entitled to any maternity benefit under the provisions of 1961 Act may give notice in writing to her employer stating that her maternity benefit be paid to her or to such person as she may nominate in the notice. Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of 1961 Act provides that on receipt of the notice, the employer shall permit such woman to absent herself from the establishment during the period for which she receives the maternity benefit.
12. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of 1961 Act thus indicate that a woman would be entitled to give notice in writing for grant of maternity benefit and on receipt of notice the employer shall permit such woman to absent herself from the establishment during the period for which she receives the maternity benefit. The 1961 Act does not contain any such stipulation of the time difference between grant of maternity benefit for the first and second child as stipulated in Rule 153 (1) of the Financial Handbook. Section 27 of 1961 Act categorically provides that the provisions of 1961 Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law whether made before or after coming into force of 1961 Act. The proviso to Section 27 of 1961 Act provides that in case a woman is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to her than those to which she would be entitled under 1961 Act, the woman shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that she would be entitled to receive benefits in respect of other matters under 1961 Act, meaning thereby that additional benefits that a woman would be entitled in terms of agreement or contract of service would be admissible to her notwithstanding anything contained in 1961 Act. Thus, it is the additional benefits which have not been precluded but in case there is anything contrary or inconsistent to the provisions of 1961 Act pertaining to maternity benefit then it would be the 1961 Act which would be applicable.
13. In the instant case, the maternity leave as applied by the petitioner has been rejected by placing reliance on Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook by contending that the same contains a restriction that the second maternity leave cannot be granted and would be admissible in case there is difference of less than two years between the end of the first maternity leave and grant of second maternity leave. Admittedly, the first maternity leave of the petitioner ended on 30.12.2017 and thus the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of second maternity leave. However, once 1961 Act does not contain any such stipulation accordingly it is apparent that the respondents have patently erred in placing reliance on Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave more particularly when Section 27 of 1961 Act provides that it is 1961 Act which would be applicable notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law or contract of service. "
6. Upon consideration of aforesaid aspect, it is quite evident that present dispute is also covered by the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Smt. Richa Shukla (supra).
7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 is quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.
8. A further direction is issued to the opposite party no.2 to grant maternity leave to petitioner, as per law, for the admissible period.
9. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed.
10. Parties to bear their own cost.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023
Arnima
