Deeptee vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9582 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Deeptee vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 April, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61177
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 658 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Deeptee
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Singh,Yateesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Kaushlesh Pratap Singh,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Yateesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner; Mr. Kaushlesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2; Mr. A.K. Nagwanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State and perused the record.

2. This Court has passed the following order on 18.02.2025:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia with following prayers:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2-Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Auraiya to give the maternity leave of the period from 21.01.2025 to 19.07.2025 (18) Days) to the petitioner and the same may be added on the portal of the Manav Sampada Portal, Education Department, Uttar Pradesh in Manav Sampada I.D. No. 361254 of the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District Auraiya to decide the representation/application dated 22.11.2024 moved by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 within a reasonable time.

3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 21.01.2025, instructions dated 31.01.2025 under the signature of District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya was placed before this Court, is taken on record. Relevant para is extracted below:-

"??????? ?????? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? 26.11.2021 ?? ?????? 24.05.2022 ?? 180 ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??, ???? ???????? ?????? 2071/68-5-2019 ????? ?????? ??????-5 ???? ?????? 30.12.2019 ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ???????/?????? ??????/???????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ???, ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? 21.01.2025 ?? ?????? 19.07.2025 ?? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??, ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ???"

4. It is stated in the aforesaid instructions that an application for grant of second maternity leave was submitted by the petitioner for the period from 21.01.2025 till 19.07.2025, has already been rejected, nothing has been brought on record regarding decision taken by the aforesaid authority by which application for grant of second maternity leave was rejected. Apart from the same, only ground, which has been mentioned in the aforesaid instructions that petitioner is working on contractual basis, hence she is not entitled for second maternity leave, pursuant to letter dated 30.12.2019 written by the State Project Director, copy of which is on record.

5. While, this Court very shocked and surprised that on one hand, it is stated by the District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya that teachers working in Primary institutions are entitled for the second maternity leave, but since the petitioner is working on contractual basis, she is not entitled for the same. This discrimination made by the District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. In this view of the matter, District Basic Education Officer, Auraiya is directed to file his personal affidavit within four weeks from today.

7. Put up this case as fresh on 25.03.2025."

3. Mr. Yateesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner refers paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit/personal affidavit, which are reproduced hereinafter:-

"4. That the contents of paragraph no.7 of the writ are not admitted as stated. In reply, it is submitted that Shiksha Mitra are being appointed on contract basis for 11 months. The State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, State Project Director Office, Lucknow has issued letter dated 31.12.2019 along with G.O. No.2071/68-5-2019 Shiksha Anubhag-5 dated 30.12.2019 regarding approval of 6 months (180 days) of maternity leave for Part Time Instructors/Shiksha Mitra/Working Teachers on contract basis in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalyay. Photo copies of letter dated 31.12.2019 of State Project Director, Lucknow along with G.O. No.2071/68-5-2019 Shiksha Anubhag-5 are collectively annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 to this affidavit.

5. That in reply to the contents of Paragraph no.8 of the writ petition, it is submitted that petitioner had submitted application for second maternity leave but for contractual employee there is provision of only 180 days maternity leave. As per G.O. dated 30.12.2019 the petitioner has already availed maternity leave of 180 days from dated 26.11.2021 to 24.05.2022. A copy of leave order dated 15.12.2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-2 to this affidavit."

4. Mr. Yateesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner refers the judgment passed by this Bench in Rama Devi Patel v. State of U.P. and 5 others. For reference, the said order in its entirety is reproduced hereinunder:-

"1. Heard Sri Man Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Tanu Roopanwal, learned Standing Counsel.

2. Impugned order dated 2.12.2024 in the present case has been passed in pursuance of an order dated 23.11.2024 of this Court passed in earlier round of litigation being Writ-A No.18392 of 2024.

3. By way of impugned order, petitioner who was undisputedly appointed on a contract basis as an Assistant Teacher was not granted the benefit of maternity leave despite this Court had directed to consider the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in UPLBEC 2017 (4) 2912, wherein similarly situated persons were granted the benefit of maternity leave taking note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Municipal Corportion of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Anr, (2000)3 SCC 224. Relevant paragraphs 28 and 29 thereof are reproduced hereinafter:

28. The aforesaid view taken by us find full support from the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corportion of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Anr, (2000) 3 SCC 224. It may be relevant to produce paragraph 27 from the said report.

"The provisions of the Act which have been set out above would indicate that they are wholly in consonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy, as set out in Article 39 and in other Articles, specially Article 42. A woman employee, at the time of advanced pregnancy cannot be compelled to undertake hard labour as it would be detrimental to her health and also to the health of the foetus. It is for this reason that it is provided in the Act that she would be entitled to Maternity Leave for certain periods prior to and after delivery. We have scanned the different provisions of the Act, but we do find anything contained in the Act which entitles only regular women employees to the benefit of Maternity Leave and to those who are engaged on casual basis or on muster roll on daily wage basis."

29. We are of the considered opinion that the benefit under the Act as well as the Rules of the Govemment Orders providing for grant of Maternity benefits and Child Care leave are applicable to all female employees, irrespective of their nature of employment whether permanent, temporary or contractual."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya (supra) was erroneously distinguished in the impugned order on ground that petitioner there was an employee of Health Department Higher Education, whereas present petitioner an employee of Secondary Education and erroneously placed reliance on a Government Order dated 24.7.2021 that since the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis on Honorarium, benefit of maternity leave could not be granted.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has tried to convince the Court that impugned order has rightly been passed on the basis of above referred Government Order. However, Court does not find that differentiation made in the impugned order by Director of Education (Secondary) Uttar Pradesh, has any legal basis, therefore, impugned order dated 2.12.2024 is set-aside and it is directed that the petitioner be granted maternity leave of 80 days along with paid Honorarium.

6. Concerned State Respondent is put on caution that the orders be passed taking note of the directions of this Court and the judgments passed on this issue without creating unnecessary litigation.

7. With aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

8. Copy of this order be sent to Chief Secretary Education, Lucknow for compliance."

5. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records.

6. The stand of State is that petitioner being a contractual appointee can be given maternity leave of 180 days only as a one time measure and she will not be entitled for any subsequently maternity leave. However, the Court is of opinion that such differentiation is not based on a legal premises. There is no Government Order in this regard. The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and another, (2000) 3 SCC 224 as well as this Court in Rama Devi Patel (supra) has also not made such differentiation. Even by granting first maternity leave, no such bar was communicated to the petitioner.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed the petitioner be granted second maternity leave of 180 days or upto the period of contract, whichever is earlier. While granting leave, the respondents are at liberty to communicate bar, if any, on subsequent maternity leave.

Order Date :- 23.4.2025

A.N. Mishra