Disposed

Priyanka Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2024WRIA/13294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A basic education teacher whose application for second maternity leave was rejected because maternity leave applies only for two children challenged the rejection. Noting prior Allahabad High Court decisions allowing identical claims under Rule 153(1), the court directed the District Basic Education Officer to appear with a personal affidavit explaining non-compliance.

What the court decided

AI extract

Priyanka Agrawal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13294 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Priyanka Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Pandey,Man Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shad Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Man Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Shad Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.08.2024 passed by the respondent No.3/Block Education Officer, Block Amanpur District Kasganj. By the aforesaid order, the application for grant of maternity leave for a period of 27.08.2024 till 22.02.2025 (180 days) was rejected on the ground that the maternity leave is applicable only for two children.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had twins (two child) from her first pregnancy and now this is her second pregnancy and the petitioner applied for second maternity leave for the period 27.08.2024 till 22.02.2025 (180 days) which was rejected only on the ground that the maternity leave is applicable only for two children. It is argued that since this is the second pregnancy, the petitioner is entitled for second maternity leave.

¶8

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Instructions dated 02.09.2024 under the signature of District Basic Education Officer, Kasganj is placed before the Court, the same is taken on record. It is stated in the aforesaid instructions that the petitioner is not

¶9

entitled for second maternity leave in view of Rule 153 (1) of Financial Handbook Volume II to IV.

¶10

While going through the record, it transpires that the controversy involved in the present petition has already been dealt with by this Court earlier and a detailed judgement has already been delivered decided on 21.10.2022 by this Court in the case of Smt. Anupam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No.9535 of 2022) . In paragraph 25 of the aforesaid judgement, there is a reference of Rule 153 (1) of Financial Handbook Volume II to IV, a reference of which has been made by the District Basic Education Officer, Kasganj in the Instructions. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. and others [2017 (11) ADJ 399 (DB)] has also taken the same view. It transpires from perusal of the record that only ground taken in the instruction is Rule 153 (1) of Financial Handbook Volume II to IV.

¶11

It is very surprising to note that the decision taken by the Division Bench as well as Single Bench of this Court has not been taken into consideration while providing instructions by the District Basic Education Officer, Kasganj.

¶12

It is well settled principle that the decision given by the Court has effect of law and the same is to be treated as law. Apart from the same, once in identical controversy, a large number of petitions have already been allowed by this Court by passing an order by which identical orders have been quashed, the same should have been taken note of. One such decision is appended as Annexure 8 to the writ petition.

¶13

In this view of the matter, the District Basic Education Officer, Kasganj is directed to appear before this Court along with his

¶14

personal affidavit on11.09.2024 explaining that under what circumstances, the order passed by this Court has not been complied with, which has the effect of law and why the contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.

¶15

Put up as fresh on 11.09.2024.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.9.2024

¶17

saqlain

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Priyanka Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Priyanka Agrawal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anamika Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Priyanu Katiyar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kedar vs State of Up and 4 Others

Brahmadai vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohan Lal vs State of Up and 5 Others

Suresh Babu vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 10 Others