Allowed

Dr Mamta v. Employee State Insurance Corp

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2014CW/5958/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a doctor working on a contract basis seeking quashing of an order rejecting her maternity leave application. The court held that maternity benefits are fundamental human rights and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.05.2014 quashed; respondents directed to sanction maternity leave and consequential benefits within thirty days.

Dr Mamta Vs Employee State Insurance Corp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

CW5958/2014

¶2

// 1 //

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5958/2014 With Stay Application No.5384/2014

¶5

Dr. Mamta W/o Dr. Sunil Jakhar Vs. Employee State Insurance Corporation

¶6

Date of Order ::: 04.08.2014

¶7

Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

¶8

Dr. Sunil Jakhar, husband of petitioner, present in person Shri Sanwar Mal Sharma, OIC for respondents, present in person

¶9

¶10

By the Court :-

¶11

Petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashment of order dated 12.05.2014 with a direction to respondents to allow the petitioner to go for maternity leave and she be granted all maternity benefits.

¶12

It is contended that petitioner is a doctor working with the respondents on contract basis. It is contended that the petitioner is pregnant and expected date of delivery is 16.08.2014. Her doctor has advised her to go on maternity leave. She applied for maternity leave vide application dated 10.05.2014 but the respondents have rejected the same vide order dated 12.05.2014. It is contended that the action of the respondent is contrary to provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Hence this writ petition.

¶13

Giving birth to and taking care of child is fundamental right of a woman and child. The parliament has enacted the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which regulates the employment of women and certain period

¶14

CW5958/2014

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

before and after child birth and to provide the maternity benefits. Every woman shall be entitled and her employer shall be liable for the payment of maternity benefits. Section 5(3) of the Act of 1961 provides that the maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be twelve weeks, that is to say, six weeks up to and including the day of her delivery and six weeks immediately following that date.

¶17

A coordinate bench of this court at its Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in Dr. (Smt.) Hemlata Saraswat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – RLW 2008 (2) Raj. 1397 , while dealing with similar matter where petitioner even if working on contract basis, had entered into services under the order dated 15.09.2003 after having been found fit and eligible by the selection committee and she was a woman employee, held that essential benefits fundamentally dealing with the very basics of human rights of allowing maternity benefit to the woman cannot be and ought not to had been ignored. The petitioner ought to had been allowed maternity leave as applied for. Refusal for allowing maternity leave to persons working on consolidated salary, was held not only illegal but mala-fide too.

¶18

The respondents could have avoided this litigation if they would have dealt with the matter with due regard to their constitutional duties, but they have chosen to proceed in utter disregard of their duties. This petition deserves to be allowed.

¶19

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.05.2014 is quashed. The respondents shall take up for consideration sanction of

¶20

CW5958/2014

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

maternity leave to the petitioner as applied and all consequential benefits thereto shall be accorded within a period of thirty days from today.

¶23

This also disposes of stay application.

¶24

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

¶25

//Jaiman//142

¶26

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶27

Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW

Dr Mamta v. Employee State Insurance Corp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Mamta v. Employee State Insurance Corp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs State Medical and Health Ors.

Madan Singh Vs O/L of M/S Harshita Organics Ltd.

Sunder Singh Vs O/L of M/S Harshita Organics Ltd.

Prahlad Gupta Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Anr.

Smt Usha Jain Vs State Education Departmentors

Management Committe Manav Bharti Vs Smt Asha Sharma and Anr.