Maternity Leave Can Be Extended Even After Birth Of A Child

Maternity Leave Can Be Extended Even After Birth Of A Child- Allahabad High Court.         The Allahabad HC stated that maternity leave can be extended even after the birth of a child.

The bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava was dealing with the petition praying for quashing the orders passed by Respondent No.4, District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah whereby and whereunder the sanction of maternity leave has been turned down.

In this case, the petitioner is posted as Headmistress at Primary School, Heerapur, Block Maarhara, District Etah on the institution run by the Board of Basic Education, U.P., Prayagraj. 

The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.

The petitioner gave birth to a girl child and after discharge from the hospital, she immediately applied for maternity leave through online for the period 18.10.2022 to 15.4.2023 (for 180 days). But the same was rejected on the ground that annexures in support of maternity leave were incomplete.

Thereafter, the petitioner again applied for maternity leave on 30.10.2022 on the prescribed proforma, but surprisingly the same has been rejected by the District Basic Education Officer, Etah on 4.11.2022 and 25.11.2022 with remarks that “after childbirth ML is not allowed and now you are eligible for CLL according rule” and “for ML out of date. now you can apply for CCL,” respectively. 

Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi counsel for the petitioner after referring to the case of Smt. Anupam Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others submitted that a similar controversy, as raised in the petition, has already been allowed by the Court in a bunch of writ petitions.

The bench looked into the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and noted that the Act was enacted to secure women’s right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women with as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker, if they so desire.

High court after looking into Section 5 (1), third proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 5, sub-section 4 of Section 5, noted that it is more than apparent that the Maternity Benefit can be extended even after birth of a child. It can even be extended in a case of a legal adoption of a child or less than three months. The only restriction being that maternity leave may not be granted for entire 180 days or 26 weeks. Further, the availability of Child Care Leave to the petitioner or grant of the same cannot dis- entitle the petitioner for grant of maternity benefit. Maternity benefit and Child Care Leave both operate in different fields and are mutually exclusive.

The bench referred to the case of Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others where it was held “independent of the grant of maternity leave, a women is also entitled to the grant of Child Care Leave for taking care of her two eldest surviving children whether for rearing or for looking after any of their needs, such as education, sickness and the like.”

High Court from the above case observed that Child Care Leave can be availed of not only at the point when the child is born but at any subsequent period. Both constitute distinct entitlements. A purposive interpretation is required to be adopted. The object and intent of the grant of maternity leave would stand defeated. The grant of maternity leave is intended to facilitate the continuance of women in the workplace. It is a harsh reality that but for such provisions many women would be compelled by social circumstances to give up work on the birth of the child if they are not granted leave and other facilitative measures. No employer can perceive child birth as detracting from the purpose of employment.

The bench observed that the only benefit the petitioner may derive from the ratio of the decision in Smt. Anupam Yadav is that the grant of maternity leave would be governed by the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

High Court opined that the District Basic Education Officer, Etah while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has overlooked the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition. 

Case Title: Saroj Kumari v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Bench: Justice Ashutosh Srivastava

Case No.: WRIT – A No. – 2211 of 2023

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi

Counsel for the respondent: Shri Shailendra Singh