Dismissed

Smt. Nargis v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2019WRIA/18631/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court bench dismissed the writ petition filed by an employee seeking maternity leave. The court held the writ petition infructuous after the respondent administrative authority granted the petitioner the full six months of maternity leave via an order dated 26.11.2019.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous due to subsequent grant of maternity leave.

Smt. Nargis Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18631 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Nargis Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M J Akhtar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

On 26.11.2019 following order was passed:-

¶6

"Heard Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel put his appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application was submitted by the petitioner for grant of maternity leave for a period of six months 26.8.2019 to 26.02.2020 but the respondent No.2 namely District Basic Education Officer Banda vide its order dated 4.9.2019 granted maternity leave only for a period of 90 days, i.e., 26.8.2019 to 23.11.2019. The petitioner again submitted a representation dated 5.11.2019 before the respondent No.2 with the prayer that three months further maternity leave be granted, i.e. 24.11.2019 to 21.2.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgement passed by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Anshu Rani Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2019 (4) ADJ 809 (Writ C No.3486 of 2019 decided on 19.04.2019). It is contended that in the aforesaid judgement, it has already been held by this Court that the applicants are entitled for maternity leave for six months. The paragraph Nos.20 and 21 of the judgement is reproduced below:-

¶8

"20. In view of the facts as narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for maternity leave for period of six months but wholly illegally leave was granted only for a period of three months.

¶9

21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.2/District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor to provide the petitioner maternity leave with honorarium with effect from 30.12.2018 to 31.3.2019. The Writ Petition stands allowed."

¶10

In this view of the matter, Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 is granted two days' time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶11

Put up this matter in the additional cause list on 28.11.2019."

¶12

Today, when the matter was taken up, it is pointed out by Sri Ashok Kumar, counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that a decision has already been taken by District Basic Education Officer, Banda on 26.11.2019, by which the petitioner was duly granted maternity leave for the period between 24.11.2019 up to

¶13

21.2.2020 (90 days'). Copy of the instructions received by Sri Ashok Kumar, Advocate from the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Banda is kept on the record.

¶14

In view of the same, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition has now become infructuous.

¶15

The present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶16

Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Ravi Kant

Smt. Nargis v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nargis v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhpal Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 10 Others

Smt. Sudha Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Hemlata Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gayn Chandra Yadav Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

C/M Gochar Mahavidyalaya, Rampur, Saharanpur Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Madhuri Kendurkar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others