Citation:
Civil Appeal No 5308 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 7772 of 2021)
Date of Order:
August 16, 2022
Bench:
D Y Chandrachud
A S Bopanna
Parties:
Appellant- Deepika Singh
Respondents- Central Administrative Tribunal &Ors.
SUBJECT
The appeal rises out of an order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 16 March, 2021, which held that the judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal denying maternity leave to be availed by the appellant, was not at fault. The Court observed the provisions under Rule 43 of Central Civil Service Rules pertaining to Child Care Leave and observed that the context of this law should be interpreted according to the purpose for which it was enacted. The Court elucidated upon the need to bridge the gap between law and society, the gendered role assigned to women by the society, the importance of maternity leave, and the concept of family. It was held that the appellant was entitled to maternity leave and the impugned judgement of the High Court was set aside.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Rule 43, Central Civil Services Rules- This rule is regarding maternity leave to be provided to a female government servant, with less than two surviving children. This can be provided for a period of 180 days. During this leave she shall be paid the amount of salary which was paid to her before her leave had begun.
- Section 5, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961- This section deals with the right to payment of maternity benefits. It says that every woman is entitled to it and her employer is liable to providing the same.
- Article 15 (3)- The State can make provisions for the benefits of women and children if found necessary.
- Article 42- This Article provides that the State shall facilitate just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
OVERVIEW
- The appellant was working as a nurse at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. She availed child care leave from the authorities on her marriage of Amir Singh, who had two children from his first marriage. On the birth of her first biological child, the appellant applied for maternity leave according to Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.
- The authorities sought clarification to which the appellant submitted a detailed reply. The appellant’s request for maternity leave was denied on grounds that she had already availed CCL earlier for the two children of her spouse’s first marriage. She had also requested them to be considered as her own children. Thus her first biological child was considered her third child, and granting maternity leave for the third child would be contrary to Rule 43 of CCS Rules.
- Appellant moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh which also stood by the authorities’ decision to deny her maternity leave. The writ petition filed at the High Court questioning this order was also dismissed, finding the CAT judgement to be free of illegalities. Hence, this appeal was filed at the Supreme Court.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether maternity leave under Rule 43, Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules can be availed on the birth of the biological child, even if childcare leave was utilized for children from the spouse’s first marriage?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The fact that the appellant has two children from her spouse’s first marriage does not disentitle her from availing maternity benefits on the birth of her first biological child. This would not be in contravention to Rule 43 of CCS Rules.
- Childcare leave availed for the two children is different from maternity leave requested on birth of the appellant’s first biological child.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- As the appellant has already taken benefits of childcare leave for the two children of her spouse’s first marriage, maternity leave cannot be granted on birth of her first biological child. She already had two surviving children, and her biological child could only be considered as her third child, hence making her disentitled of benefits of maternity.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court observed that Rule 43 of CCS Rules falls under purposive construction. That is, these provisions should be understood according to the context in which they were enacted, which would help to bridge the gap between law and society. Citing the judgement of the same Court in Badshah vs Urmila Badshah Godse [(2014) 1 SCC 188 or Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No 19530/2013], termed this principle as a tool of “social justice adjudication” or “social context adjudication”.
- The Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 was analyzed. Section 3( c) defines the term ‘delivery’ as the birth of a child and Section 5 deals with the right to payment of maternity benefits. This Act was enacted to ensure an autonomous life and flexibility between the roles of mother and worker that a woman has to play. Article 15 (3) also provides for making special provisions for the benefit of women.
- Childcare leave is independent of maternity leave and a woman is entitled to both. The fact that childcare leave was already grantedto the appellant cannot be the reason as to denying her of maternity leave.
- The concept of a “family” both in law and society is the common notion of a mother, father, and their children as a single unit. However, the circumstances under which this structure may undergo changes should also be considered. Domestic relationships, unmarried partnerships, and queer relationships also come under the term family. Single parenthood, remarriage, fostering, or adoption are also other forms of familial relationships. In this case, the appellant’s family structure underwent a change when she became parent to her spouse’s children from his first marriage. In such situations, the provisions that govern them should be applied taking into consideration the context in which they were formulated.
- Thus, the appellant is entitled to the grant of maternity leave.
CONCLUSION
In this judgement the Court made significant and relevant observations that necessitated a review of the legal definitions of the term “family”. The provisions that pertain to this case were viewed in regard to the purpose for which they were created. This enabled the Court to throw light and elucidate upon the importance of the social context of the arguments put forth by the appellant.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
