Madras High Court
Dr.J.Bhavani vs The Director Of Medical on 1 June, 2016
Author: B.Rajendran
Bench: B. Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01-06-2016
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
Writ Petition No.380 of 2016 and
WMP.Nos.364 & 365 of 2016
Dr.J.Bhavani .. Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Director of Medical
Education Directorate of Medical Education
Kilpauk Chennai-600 010.
2 The Dean
Sivagangai Medical College Sivagangai
District. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for connected records pertaining to the passing of the order dated 24.11.2014 in Letter Dis. No. 79855/E3/2/2014 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to sanction maternity leave from 19.03.2014 to 14.09.2014 (180 days) with full pay and allowance and further direction to the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to sit for the PG entrance examination to be held on March 2016 by counting the maternity leave period as service.
For Petitioner : Mr. G.Justin
For Respondents : Mr.Rajendra Prasad
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for connected records pertaining to the passing of the order dated 24.11.2014 in Letter Dis. No. 79855/E3/2/2014 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to sanction maternity leave from 19.03.2014 to 14.09.2014 (180 days) with full pay and allowance and further direction to the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to sit for the PG entrance examination to be held on March 2016 by counting the maternity leave period as service.
2. According to the petitioner, she was selected and appointed as Assistant Surgeon as per the Medical Services Recruitment Board to fill a permanent vacancy. After joining in the above post, she made a plea to sanction her maternity leave, but the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's appointment is purely temporary. The very contention of the authority is that it is not applicable in so far as the persons, who are appointed only under emergency provisions, whereas she was recruited properly through Medical Service Recruitment Board. In view of the same, the impugned order passed is not correct.
3. A detailed counter has been filed incorporating Rule 101 (a) Maternity leave which is extracted as under:
"A competent authority may grant maternity leave on full pay to permanent married women Government Servants for a period not exceeding 180 days which may spread over from the pre confinement rest to post confinement recuperation at the option of the Government servant. This maternity leave will not be admissible to married women Government Servants more than two children. Non-permanent, married women Government Servants, whether appointed in a regular capacity or under the emergency provision of the relevant service rules should take for maternity purposes, the earned leave for which they may be eligible. If however, such a Government Servant not eligible for earned leave or if the leave to her credit is less than 180 days, maternity leave may be granted for a period not exceeding 180 days, or for the period that falls short of 180 days, as the case may be. Non-permanent married women Government servants employed under the emergency provisions should have completed one year of continuous service including leave periods, if any, to become eligible for the grant of maternity leave".
4. A careful reading of Rule 101 (a) Maternity leave, the words, "whether appointed in a regular capacity or under the emergency provision" shows that there is a categorical admission in case of persons coming under regular appointment and they are entitled for the benefit.
5. In the particular case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's selection was made as per the Board. Though in the counter it is stated that she is appointed on temporary basis, the petitioner rightly pointed out that since it is a recruitment made by the board, normally they will make the recruitment as a temporary one and after the completion of probation they will be made permanent and that will not disentitle them to get the benefit of maternity leave.
6. Hence, on a careful reading of the entire impugned order, I find that the interpretation of the Rule as made by the authority is not correct. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to sanction the maternity leave taken by the petitioner from 19.03.2014 to 14.09.2014 (180 days) with full pay and allowance.
7. As far as the granting permission to the petitioner to sit for the PG entrance examination to be held on March 2016 by counting the maternity leave period as service, the same is not considered at this point of time and no order is passed in that prayer.
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
kua 01-06-2016
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1 The Director of Medical
Education Directorate of Medical Education
Kilpauk Chennai-600 010.
2 The Dean
Sivagangai Medical College Sivagangai
District.
B.RAJENDRAN,J
kua
W.P.No.380 of 2016
01.06.2016