Allahabad High Court
Deepali Kasaudhan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 18 September, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:59729
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4689 of 2023
Petitioner :- Deepali Kasaudhan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education U.P. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Vikram Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Jaibind Singh Rathour, Ran Vijay Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Sri Raghvendra Yadav counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2, Sri Ran Vijay Singh the counsel for the respondent no.3 as well as Sri S. S. Rajawat the counsel for the respondents no.4 & 5.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.06.2023 whereby the maternity benefits as claimed by the petitioner were denied.
3. When the petition was filed, this Court had directed the respondents to obtain instructions, the said instructions were taken on record. In terms of the said instructions, the reasoning recorded, while denying the benefits was, that the petitioner had earlier also claimed the maternity benefits for the period 09.10.2021 to 04.02.2022 and now the claim is for the period 19.06.2023 to 15.12.2023 and as the gap in between the two leaves were less than 180 days in terms of the Government Order dated 04.06.1999, it was found that the petitioner was not entitled to the maternity benefits.
4. The counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in Writ A No.5114 of 2022 (Smt. Satakshi Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 18.08.2022 wherein the similar issue came up for consideration before this court and this court was of the view that the said benefits flowing from the Maternity Benefits Act cannot be taken up by making the provisions in the Financial Handbook or otherwise, the findings as recorded by the Court in para 25 are as under :
"(1) The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 has been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of powers under Entry 24 in List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and to secure the goals stated in Articles 38, 39, 42 and 43 of the Constituton of India and also to give effect to the provisions contained in Article 15 (3) of the Constitution.
(2) The provision of Financial Handbook are pre-Constitutional executive instructions and would be subsidiary to the Act of Parliament and in case of any inconsistency, the statutoy enactment framed by the Parliament would prevail and hence the provisions of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 would prevail over the provisions of Financial Handbook and, therefore, provision of Rule 153 (1) of the Financial Handbook Volume I to IV are read down with regard to admissibility of leave to a woman with regard to second pregnancy which would be governed by Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 and not Rule 153 (1) of the Financila Handbook Volume II to IV.
(3) The State Government already having adopted the provisions of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 as per Government Order dated 11.4.2011, as recorded by this Court in the case of Anshu Rani Vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ A No.3486 of 2019, makes it abundantly clear that the provisions of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 would prevail over any other law."
5. Following the said judgment, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 06.06.2023 is quashed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits flowing in favour of the petitioner in terms of the Maternity Benefits Act.
6. It is further clarified that the same shall not be denied only on the ground that Government Order prescribed otherwise. The benefits to which the petitioner is found to be entitled shall be extended to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.
7. The consequential benefits shall also be extended to the petitioner and for the period for which the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of leave shall be suitably altered in the case of the petitioner. Any leave to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in terms of the said order shall be duly extended to the petitioner and the necessary modifications with regard to the leave granted to the petitioner for the said period shall be suitably amended.
8. The writ petition stands allowed with the said observations.
Order Date :- 18.9.2023
VNP/-
