Petitioner challenged rejection of maternity leave citing prior Supreme Court guidelines. Petition dismissed as infructuous after respondents granted relief via affidavit before final court order.
Writ petition dismissed as having become infructuous because the relief sought was already granted by the District Basic Education Officer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:135010
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10932 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt. Himani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Pandey,Man Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nagendra Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Block Education Officer, Block Hasanpur, Amroha/respondent no.4 on the instructions of the respondent no.3. Further to direct the respondent no.3 to grant the maternity leave of 180 days to the applicant/petitioner forthwith.
2 . The following order was passed by this Court:-
"1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition challenging the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by Block Education Officer, Block-Hasanpur, Amroha/respondent no.4.
2. By the aforesaid order maternity leave application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground which reads as follows :-
अनकमन्य नहिहीं। - Aadarniy basic Shiksha Adhikari mahoday ne bataya hai ki aapke do bacchon ke andar 2 sal ka antar nahin hai"
3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the various judgements delivered by this Court from time to time. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Priyanka Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ A No.565 of 2023). He placed reliance upon paragraphs 1, 26 and 27 of the aforesaid judgement, which reads as follows :-
"1. These writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts and thus are being decided together by a common order. The writ petitioners, who are working as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools managed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Department, have approached this Court assailing the orders passed by
the competent authority / District Basic Education Officer whereby and whereunder the sanction of maternity leave for 180 days has been turned down by stating that the same is not admissible/ or on the ground that the period of 2 years have not elapsed from the date of the expiry of the last maternity leave granted to them under the proviso to Rule 153 (I) of Chapter XIII of the U.P. Fundamental Rules in Financial Handbook Volume-II, Part 2 to 4.
26. In the case at hand the maternity leave so applied by the petitioner has been rejected simply by stating "Anumanya Nahi". Learned cousnel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the maternity leave in terms of the restriction imposed by the second proviso of Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook to the effect that second maternity leave cannot be granted where there is difference of less than two years between the end of the first maternity leave and grant of second maternity leave. Admittedly, the first maternity leave of the petitioner was availed and she gave birth to a male child on 4.1.2021. The petitioner became pregnant again and applied again for maternity leave on 11.6.2022. The second maternity leave to the petitioner has been refused by the impugned order. However, once the 1961 Act does not contain any such stipulation, the Basic Education Officer manifestly erred in rejecting the leave to the petitioner more particularly when Section 27 of the 1961 Act provides that it is the 1961 Act which would be applicable notwithstanding anything in consistent contained in any other law or contract of service.
27. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 23.6.2022 in the writ petition is set aside. The District Basic Education Officer concerned is directed to pass appropriate orders for sanctioning the maternity leave to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of service of certified copy of the order upon him."
4. Apart from the same, he placed reliance upon the judgement delivered by this Court in Writ-A No.14833 of 2020, Renu Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 24.12.2021 as well as the judgement and order delivered in Writ-A No.4996 of 2022 (Smt. Guddi vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 8.4.2022. It is unfortunate that time and again for last more than four and five years in identical situation such kind of orders were set aside by this Court inspite of the same again identical orders has been passed by Block Education Officer. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid order is not only per-se illegal but also contemptuous in nature since the same has been passed against the law laid down by this Court from time to time.
5. Sri N. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 is directed to file personal affidavit of respondent no.4-Block Education Officer, Block-Hasanpur, District Amroha that under what circumstances such an order has been passed which is incomplete violation of the law laid down by this Court from time to time. The aforesaid personal affidavit be filed within 10 days from today.
6. Put up as fresh on 22.08.2024. Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by Block Education Officer, BlockHasanpur, Amroha/respondent no.4 shall remain stayed. "
3. Pursuant to the same, a personal affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.4 namely Block Education Officer, Block Hasanpur, District Amroha by Shri
N.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4, the same is taken on record.
4. It is stated in paragraph nos. 5 of the aforesaid affidavit that necessary order has already been passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Amroha/ respondent no.3 on 08.08.2024, copy of which is appended as Annexure-P.A.-1 to the personal affidavit.
5 . After going through the same, a prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner that relief sought by the petitioner has already been granted to her, therefore, no further orders are required to be passed and the present writ petition may be dismissed as having become infructuous.
6 . Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous .
Order Date :- 22.8.2024 Swati
Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as having become infructuous after the relief was already granted.
Whether the Block Education Officer committed a complete violation of law by rejecting the initial maternity leave application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Priyanka Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and 3 othersRelied on¶12
Smt. Priyanka Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ A No.565 of 2023)
Renu Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶17
Renu Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 24.12.2021 (Writ-A No.14833 of 2020)
Smt. Guddi vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶17
Smt. Guddi vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 8.4.2022 (Writ-A No.4996 of 2022)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Himani
State Of U.P.
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
Block Education Officer, Block Hasanpur
Prakash Padia
Swati
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
