मातृत्व अवकाश देने में आनाकानी कर रहे अधिकारी, हाईकोर्ट ने अनुबन्ध पर कार्य कर रही पूर्व माध्यमिक विद्यालय सीतापुर में अनुदेशक ( इंस्ट्रक्टर ) को भी मातृत्व अवकाश देने को कहा
मातृत्व अवकाश देने में आनाकानी कर रहे अधिकारी, हाईकोर्ट ने अनुबन्ध पर कार्य कर रही पूर्व माध्यमिक विद्यालय सीतापुर में अनुदेशिका ( इंस्ट्रक्टर ) को भी मातृत्व अवकाश देने को कहा।
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 28787 of 2016
Petitioner :- Smt. Jyoti Gautam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shobhit Kumar,Shobhit Mohan Shukla
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner is working as an Instructor on contract basis in a Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, District Sitapur. Her grievance is that she has made an application for maternity leave from 05th December, 2016 to 15th June, 2017, but the same has not been considered.
It is stated that the Chief Medical Officer, District Women Hospital, Sitapur has given a certificate dated 16th November, 2016 about the pregnancy of the petitioner. A copy of the said certificate is on the record as annexure-2 to the writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, Sri Shobhit Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent, and Sri Shibhit Mohan Shukla, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the third respondents.
In view of the issue involved, in my view, no response is necessary from the respondents and the writ petition, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, is taken on board and is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
From the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer it is evident that the petitioner requires maternity leave.
The Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and others, 2000 LawSuit (SC) 487, has elaborately considered the issue regarding grant of maternity leave to a working lady. India is a signatory to an agreement, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women". The said Convention has been adopted by the United Nations on 18th December, 1979. Paragraph-34 of the said judgment, wherein the Supreme Court has extracted Article 11 of the said Convention, reads as under:
"Delhi is the capital of India. No other City or Corporation would be more conscious than the City of Delhi that India is a signatory to various International covenants and treaties. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on 10th of December, 1948, set in motion the universal thinking that human rights are supreme and ought to be preserved at all costs. This was followed by a series of Conventions. On 18th of December, 1979, the United Nations adopted the "Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women". Article 11 of this Convention provides as under:-
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in particular;
(a) The right to work as an inalienable right of all human beings;
(b) The right to the same employment opportunities, including the application of the same criteria for selection in matters of employment;
(c) The right to free choice of profession and employment, the right to promotion, job security and all benefits and conditions of service and the right to receive vocational training and retraining, including apprenticeships, advanced vocational train-ing and recurrent training;
(d) The right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work;
(e) The right to social security, particularly in cases of retire-ment, unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age and other incapacity to work, as well as the right to paid leave.
(f) The right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of repro-duction.
2. In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures :
(a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave and discrimi-nation in dismissals on the basis of marital status;
(b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances;
(c) To encourage the provision of the necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life, in particular through promoting the establishment and develop-ment of a network of child-care facilities;
(d) To provide special protection to women during pregnancy in types of work proved to be harmful to them.
3. Protective legislation relating to matters covered in this article shall be reviewed periodically in the light of scientific and technological knowledge and shall be revised, repealed or extended as necessary."
A careful reading of the said Article highlights the object of the said convention, inter alia, to prohibit, subject to the� imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave and discrimination on the basis of marital status.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is evident that the petitioner is entitled for the maternity leave even being the employee working on contract basis.
Having regard to the said facts, I am of the view that a direction be issued upon the District Basic Education Officer, Sitapur, the third respondent, to consider the application of the petitioner for sanction of maternity leave in the light of the law mentioned above within a week from the date of communication of this order.
The experience reveals that a large number of writ petitions are filed by the working lady with the similar relief for sanction of maternity leave, on account of inaction on the part of the concerned officer in not granting maternity leave to them within a reasonable time in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra). Due to such act of the officers, the petitioners in such writ petitions are facing lot of difficulties. Hence, a direction is issued upon the State Project Director, Education for All, Lucknow, the second respondent, to issue necessary directions to all the District Basic Education Officers regarding the aforesaid law settled by the Supreme Court and to comply the same without any delay.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 6.12.2016
मातृत्व अवकाश देने में आनाकानी कर रहे अधिकारी, हाईकोर्ट ने अनुबन्ध पर कार्य कर रही पूर्व माध्यमिक विद्यालय सीतापुर में अनुदेशक ( इंस्ट्रक्टर ) को भी मातृत्व अवकाश देने को कहा Reviewed by Brijesh Shrivastava on 9:18 AM Rating: