Delhi High Court
National Capital Territory Of ... vs Veenu Grover on 18 January, 2017
$~17.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 11869/2015
Date of decision: 18th January, 2017
NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through Mr. D. Verma, Advocate.
versus
VEENU GROVER ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Arati Mahajan Shedha, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
The Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD, for short) and the
Medical Superintendent, Janak Puri Super Speciality Hospital challenge
grant of maternity benefit vide the order dated 14th February, 2014 passed
by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal,
for short) whereby OA No. 3843/2013, Veenu Grover versus GNCTD, has
been allowed. Veenu Grover the respondent before us, it has been held,
was entitled to maternity leave of 180 days, the period stipulated in Rule 43
of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972.
2. The contention of the GNCTD is that the respondent being a
contractual employee is entitled to maternity leave of 84 days/ 12 weeks as
per the Maternity Benefits Act, 1971, for the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 are
W.P. (C) No. 11869/2015 Page 1 of 4
not applicable to contractual employees.
3. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order for several
reasons. The issue of minimum emoluments payable to contractual
employees working as staff nurses has been the subject-matter of numerous
litigation in the High Court of Delhi. In W.P.(C) No. 8476/2009, GNCTD
and Others versus Dipika S. Kumar heard with W.P.(C) No. 8764/2008
GNCTD and Others versus Victoria Massey and other cases decided on
22nd May, 2009, it has been held that contractual employees are entitled to
minimum of the scale paid to regular employees, including all allowances,
except annual increments. In W.P. (C) No. 2915/2013, Chief Secretary,
GNCTD & Anr. versus Satish Kumar & Ors., delivered on 1st November,
2013, after referring to earlier judgments including Victoria Massey
(supra), it was observed that maternity benefit had to be provided to all
employees, irrespective of their nature of employment, tenure, status, etc.
However as there were no pleadings on the applicability of the Maternity
Benefits Act, 1971, the issue was left open to be decided by the GNCTD,
who were required to apply the law on the subject interpreting the word
"Establishment" under the aforesaid Act. The same Division Bench in a
subsequent judgment dated 6th November, 2013 in W.P.(C) No. 6798/2002,
Sonia Gandhi & Ors. versus GNCTD & Ors., referred to the Office
Order dated 29th November, 2000 of the GNCTD that a woman contractual
employee was entitled to maternity leave of 135 days for delivery. This
W.P. (C) No. 11869/2015 Page 2 of 4
Office Order, it was observed, was not brought to the notice of the Court in
the earlier matters.
4. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to their decision in
OA No. 4212/2012, Shweta Tripathy and another versus GNCTD,
decided on 17.9.2013 wherein it has held that contractual employees
should be granted benefit of maternity leave as per CCS (Leave) Rules,
1972 after referring to DOP&T OMs dated 12.4.1985, 5.7.1990 and
12.7.1999. These OMs have not been filed before us, to examine whether
the contention of the respondent is correct.
5. It is always open to Authorities who are model employees to grant
greater benefits to employees with respect to maternity leave
6. In the present case, by interim order dated 6 th December, 2013 the
respondent was permitted to remain on maternity leave for 180 days with
effect from 18th August, 2013. It is also an undisputed position that the
respondent on an earlier occasion was granted maternity leave for 167 days
at the time of the birth of her first child. The petitioner now claims that the
said leave was granted under an error/ by mistake and orders have been
issued on 29th February, 2013 to recover the salary and allowances for 83
days. A contractual employee is paid minimum amount of the scale of pay
applicable to a regular employee. We do not think it would be just or
proper for us to direct recovery of past arrears, as per the ratio in State of
Punjab versus Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, looking at and considering
W.P. (C) No. 11869/2015 Page 3 of 4
the total amount of salary payable, which is substantially lower than the
salary paid to regular employees. Pertinently, the proposed amendments to
the Maternity Benefits Act, 1971 postulate grant of 180 days of maternity
leave.
7. We would, therefore, not like to examine the contention as an
academic exercise and interfere with the impugned order.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we exercise our discretion and dismiss the
present writ petition. No order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
JANUARY 18, 2017
VKR
