Remanded

Smt. a.Vijayasree, v. The Managing Director, a.P.Womens Co-operative

Telangana HC30 Aug 2012WP/16241/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging delays in maternity leave payment, the Court noted the First Respondent Corporation's failure to appear. The Court disabled the delay in implementing 2003 government orders instructing the Corporation to sanction 45 days of maternity leave with pay.

What did the court decide?

Directs the Managing Director of 1st Respondent to appear on 30.08.2012 to explain lapses in not paying maternity leave promptly.

Smt. a.Vijayasree, Vs The Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY , THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE :PRESENT:

¶2

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP .NO:16241 of 2000

¶3

Between:

¶4

Smt. A.Vijayasree, W/o. J.Rajeshwar Reddy, District Manager, Telugu Bala Mahila Pranganam, (T.B.M.P.P), Chincholi (B) Village, Nirmal, Adilabad District.

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

AND

¶7

1 The Managing Director, A.P.Women's Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited, Near Sarathi Studio, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

¶8

2 The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶9

3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Womens Development & Child Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aside the Proceedings No.2258/WCFC/A1/2000, dated 16-8-2000 in so far as sanctioning leave on loss of pay is concerned and also the Proceedings No. 5489/WCFC/A2/9899 dated 14-12-1998 issued by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary, vindictive, capricious, discriminatory, apart from violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 42 of the Constitution of India and violative of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Act 53 of 1961). 2) It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately release the pay during the maternity leave period availed by the petitioner with penal interest as she is denied pay during the maternity leave period;

¶12

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of SRI C. SRINIVASA BABA Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Asst. Govt. Pleader for Animal Husbandry for the respondents 2 and 3, the Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This matter is appearing consistently in the list. The name of Sri J.S. Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Corporation was also printed in the cause list, but none bothers to appear for the 1^st respondent Corporation.

¶15

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Animal Husbandry, at my request, secured detailed instructions not only from the government, but also from the 1^st respondent Corporation. She has placed before me a copy of the proceedings, dated 30.07.2012 of the Managing Director of the

¶16

1^st respondent Corporation, sanctioning maternity leave for a period of 45 days to the writ petitioner, on two different occasions. In paragraph 2 of the said order, the Managing Director has referred to the orders passed by the State Government in their G.O.Rt.No. 197, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (Estt.) Department, dated 14.05.2003, permitting the Managing Director, A.P. Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited and the Director, Women Development and Child Welfare to make a special provision in the contract agreement in respect of women employees providing for 45 days maternity leave and payment of consolidated amount equal to 45 days of salary during the maternity leave period.

¶17

As per these orders of the State Government, dated 14.05.2003, the claim of the petitioner should have been sanctioned immediately thereafter in the year 2003 itself. No reasons are forthcoming as to why it took more than nine years for the Managing Director to pass orders implementing the directives issued by the State Government.

¶18

Since none bothers to appear for the 1^st respondent Corporation, the Managing Director of the 1^st respondent Corporation is directed to appear on 30.08.2012, at 10.30 a.m. and explain as to why he be not held accountable for the lapses committed by the 1^st respondent Corporation in not paying promptly for the maternity leave period of the writ petitioner. Call on 30.08.2012.

¶19

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶20

//TRUE COPY//

¶21

for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶22

¶23

1. The Managing Director, A.P.Women's Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited, Near Sarathi Studio, Ameerpet, Hyderabad (by SPL.MESSENGER)

¶24

2. The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶25

3. The Principal Secretary, Womens Development & Child Welfare Department, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. ( 2 & 3 by RPAD)

¶26

4. 2 CC to the G.P. for Animal Husbandry, High court of A.P.Hyd. (BY SPL.MESSENGER)

¶27

5. One C.C.to Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, Advocate (OPUC)

¶28

6. One C.C.to Sri J.S.Raju, Advocate (OPUC)

¶29

7. One spare copy. Bsr

HIGH COURT

NRR.J

DATED 16-08-2012

CALL ON 30-08-2012

¶34

ORDER W.P.NO. 16241 OF2000

¶35

DIRECTION

¶36

Bsr Dt. 18-8-2012

HIGH COURT

NRR.J

DATED 16-08-2012

CALL ON 30-08-2012

¶41

ORDER

¶42

W.P.NO. 16241 OF2000

¶43

DIRECTION

Smt. a.Vijayasree, v. The Managing Director, a.P.Womens Co-operative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. a.Vijayasree, v. The Managing Director, a.P.Womens Co-operative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Johnmilton Vs The Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation

B. Baig, Vs Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

Smt.P.Sarala Vs Apsrtc.,rep.by its Managing Director

M.Pitchaiah, Vs Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal

V.Sathamma, Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Smt. Sunitha Dixit, Vs Sri v. Manohar