Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. An almost a new point of controversy has been raised with regard to the admissibility of maternity leave to female teachers. In some of the O.As. it has been prayed that the benefit of maternity leave, which has hitherto been denied by the respondent-Administration, be directed to be extended in accordance with the rules. Mr. R.P. Bali, learned Counsel for some of the applicants urged that the action of the respondents in denying the benefit of maternity leave like other regular employees is violative of the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India as it denies the benefit of beneficial provisions of law to a female teacher. Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the Administration urged that maternity leave is not admissible to contract employees as they are not covered by the Punjab CSR Vol. I, Part-I. According to him the benefit of maternity leave with pay is payable to permanent/regular female employees and that the Administration is justified in carving out a distinction between the regular female teachers and the teachers appointed on part time or contract basis, as is in the present case. Let us examine the respective contentions of the parties.

14. Now comes the question--whether school teachers appointed on contract basis, who obviously are not the regular employees appointed under the statutory rules, are entitled to claim the benefit of maternity leave or not? This aspect of the matter came to be considered by the Apex Court in the case of Rattan Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1985(3) SLR 548=1985(2) SLJ 437 (SC). In that case the grievance of the teachers appointed on ad hoc basis by the State of Haryana with regard to nonpayment of salary during the summer vacations and denial of other privileges such as casual leave, medical leave, maternity leave etc., came to be considered. The Apex Court noticed that if the teachers had been appointed regularly, they would have been entitled to the benefits of summer vacations alongwith salary and allowances payable in respect of that period and to all other privileges such as casual leave, medical leave, maternity leave, etc., available to all the Government servants. These benefits are, the Court observed, denied to the ad hoc teachers unreasonably on account of the pernicious system of appointment adopted by the State Government. In Paragraph 3 of the report, the Apex Court observed:

"3. We strongly depricate the policy of the State Government under which 'ad hoc' teachers are denied the salary and allowances for the period of the summer vacation by resorting to the fictional breaks of the type referred to above. These 'ad hoc' teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacation as long as they hold the office under this order. Those who are entitled to maternity or medical leave, shall also be granted such leave in accordance with the rules."

In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Anr., 2000(2) RSJ 131=2000(3) SLJ 369 (SC), the Apex Court had to consider the question--Whether the female workers (muster roll), engaged by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi who raised a demand for grant of maternity leave, which was available only the regular female workers, but was denied to them on the ground that their services were not regularized, were entitled to any maternity leave?, came to be considered. After elaborately discussing the legal provisions and taking note of the social and human aspects, the Hon'ble Court allowed the claim of the Female Workers (Muster Roll) for maternity leave at par with regular female workers. Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Simi Dutta v. State, 2001(4) SCT 726, has allowed the claim of a lecturer appointed on ad hoc basis for maternity leave, rejecting the stand of the State Government that there has to be a distinction between regular female employees and the ad hoc one. A Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2002(3) RSJ 43, had the occasion to consider the claim of the mistresses, teachers, lecturers etc., appointed on contract basis in different schools and colleges in the State of Haryana. Their claim was resisted by the State Government on the ground that the petitioners being the contractual appointees are not entitled to the maternity leave. This contention was rejected on the basis of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Rattan Lal (supra) and Municipal Corporation (supra). Directions were issued to the State Government to grant the benefit of maternity leave to the petitioners. In the said decision it was further observed that there is hardly any distinction between an ad hoc employee and a contractual employee. Both are engaged for a definite term as may be specified in the letter of appointment. So far as they are performing the same duties and functions and are holding the same post, it will be very difficult to draw the fine line of distinction between these two classes. Making a reference to the other decisions in C.W.P. No. 2783/96 titled Sunita Rani v. State of Punjab and Ors., C.W.P. No. 527 of 1999 titled as Vijay Bala and Ors. v. State of Haryana decided on 10.7.2000, C.W.P. No. 2375/ 2000 - Uma Rani v. State of Haryana decided on 5.7.2001 and the earlier decisions in the case of Polu Ram v. State of Haryana, 1998(4) RSJ 162, it was held that it was difficult to hold that contractual appointees would not be entitled to relief prayer for.

15. A contrary decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is to be found in the case of Santosh Malik v. State of Haryana, 2000(2) RSJ 765, in which maternity leave was not made permissible to part time employees. In that case the earlier decisions of the Apex Court such as Rattan Lal (supra), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) have not been considered. This decision cannot, therefore, be treated as a precedent or authority on the point.

16. The weight of the law discussed above is that the contract appointees who cannot be differentiated in any manner with the ad hoc appointees are entitled to the benefit of maternity leave. It would not be out of place to mention that the question of grant of maternity leave to female teachers appointed on contract basis during the first six months of service or lesser period would not arise because women candidates, if found to be pregnant at the time of entry would be temporarily held unfit and will not be recruited in service even on contract basis till they are fit for duty. The contingency of making a claim for the maternity leave would arise only in respect of the teachers who have put in service of more than six months. In our view, all the female teachers appointed on contract basis, are entitled to maternity leave as is admissible to the regular employees in accordance with the rules.