Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Rani vs Bhakhra Beas Management Board And ... on 16 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145501
CWP-20548-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:145501
117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-20548-2023
Date of Decision:16.11.2023
SUNITA RANI ......... Petitioner
Versus
BHAKHRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND ORS
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pranav Chadha, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab
for respondent No.4.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. Short reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 is taken
on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of communication dated
15.12.2021 (Annexure P-3), order dated 28.01.2022 (Annexure P-6) and
letter dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-11) whereby claim of the petitioner
qua maternity leave has been declined.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
respondent has rejected application of the petitioner seeking maternity
leave on the ground that maternity leave is not available for 3rd child. The
petitioner at the time of joining service was already having two kids. The
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145501
CWP-20548-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:145501
3rd kid has born from 2nd marriage of the petitioner and after joining
respondent-department. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by
the judgments of this Court in Ruksana Vs. State of Haryana and others
2011 (5) SLR 325, Jyoti Suhag vs. State of Haryana (CWP No.3652 of
2015 decided on 15.05.2015) and Smt. Chitra Rani vs. State of Haryana
and others (CWP No.18236 of 2015, decided on 18.11.2015).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3
submits that a totally different opinion has been formed by Division
Bench of Madras High Court in 'Union of India Vs. Asiya Begum' 2020
LIC 3875 as well as Uttarakhand High Court in 'State of Uttarakhand
Vs. Urmila Masih and others' 2019 (4) SCT 442.
5. On being asked, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3
expressed his inability to controvert the fact that case of the petitioner is
covered by Division Bench judgment as well as Single Bench judgment
of this Court. The only contention of respondent is that judgments
delivered by other Courts are later in time.
6. It is undisputed fact that Division Bench judgment of this
Court was assailed before Hon'ble Supreme Court by State of Haryana
and SLP came to be dismissed. A Division Bench of this Court and
different Single Judge Benches of this Court have extended benefit as
claimed by the petitioner. In view of principle of binding judicial
precedent, propriety and consistency, this Court is bound to follow
judgment of Division Bench and Single Bench judgments of this Court in
preference to judgments of other High Courts. As case of petitioner is
squarely covered by Division Bench as well as Single Bench judgments
of this Court, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145501
CWP-20548-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:145501
allowed. The impugned orders are hereby set aside and respondents are
directed to extend benefit of maternity leave to the petitioner.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
16.11.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145501
3 of 3
