Reshma Shaik, vs The Union Of India,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3848 AP

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.21723 of 2021

PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl. OFFICE DATE ORDER No. NOTE.

30.09.2021 DVSS, J

I.A.No.1 of 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Alekya representing the learned Assistant Solicitor General.

The petitioner who had delivered twins is on the verge of delivery of another child and applied for Maternity Leave. Relying upon Rule 43 of of CCS(Leave Rules),1972 the request was rejected by the order dated 07.09.2021 on the ground that she has two(2) surviving children. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition is filed and the present I.A is filed to suspend the proceedings dated 07.09.2021.

Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the first delivery resulted in the birth of two children as twins, the rule should be liberally interpreted and for the next pregnancy the petitioner is entitled to Maternal Leave. He also contended that the impugned order does not contain the reasons. Therefore, he prays for an interim order.

Ms. Alekya appearing for the learned Assistant Solicitor General relied on two Division Bench Judgments of the Madras High Court in W.A.No.4343 of 2019, dated 27.02.2020 and Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.3460 of 2021. Almost identical issues were considered in these matters.

In the case before Madras High Court, the petitioner therein also delivered twins. For that case, she applied for Maternity Leave which was rejected. In Para No.8 of the order, Lordships have considered and held that it is the debatable whether the delivery is a 2nd delivery or 3rd delivery in as much as twins are born they have delivered one after another. Therefore, it was mentioned that this amounts to two deliveries.

In the case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court (C.W.P.No.3460 of 2021), the petitioner therein married a person who had two surviving children. Thereafter, she became pregnant. It was held that pregnancy/delivery of a child, when they were two(2) surviving children from the husband 1st marriage, was also a ground to reject the application.

Although these Judgments are not strictly in the sense binding on this Court, as the very same Rule fell for consideration in these two(2) cases, they are treated as guidance.

Hence, at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that the interim application cannot be allowed and the same may be dismissed as both counsels are heard.

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

________ DVSS, J W.P.No.21723 of 2021

For filing counter, post on 28.10.2021.

________ DVSS, J Tm