Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Miss.Kavita Yadav vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2010

Dr Shipra Agarwal vs M/O Agriculture on 30 August, 2019

8. The learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 4798/2003 decided on 09.08.2005 in Bharti Gupta Vs. Rail India Technical and Economical Services Ltd. (Rites) and Ors., the order of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 160/2017 decided on 05.05.2017 in Mona khatri Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., and the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in S.L.P. (C) No. 12797 of 1998 decided on 08.03.2000 in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Ors. The respondents have also relied upon the Judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1978/2018 dated 12.04.2019 in Dr. Kavita Yadav Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanchipuram District vs The Principal Secretary on 18 October, 2024

16. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court [Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9776] and as a consequence thereof, the Tribunal's decision Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), OA No. 1978 of 2018, order dated 12- 4-2019 (CAT)] shall also stand invalidated. We allow this appeal and direct the employer to extend maternity benefits as would have been available to the appellant in terms of Sections 5 and 8 of the 1961 Act, after deducting therefrom any sum that may already have been paid to the appellant under the same head or for such purpose. Such benefits, as may be quantified in monetary units, shall be extended to her within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment. The orders of the employer rejecting the appellant's claim on this count shall stand quashed.” (emphasis supplied)
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Dr.E.Krithikaa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 June, 2025

6.The respondents concede that the appellant had served the government for twelve months and during the remaining period of bond service, the appellant was on maternity leave. The question as to whether the period of maternity leave can be construed as bond service is no longer res integra. It has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 1 SCC 421, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the relevant provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Section 5 of the said Act holds that every woman shall be entitled to the payment of maternity benefit. Section 12 forbids the employer from dismissing or discharging an employee when she absents herself from work in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 27 of the Act 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 02:40:56 pm ) 5 W.A.(MD)NO.860 of 2023 states that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or agreement or contract of service.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Dr.Anitha D vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 September, 2025

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submitted that though the petitioner is entitled to maternity Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 08:54:20 pm ) W.P.No.32727 of 2025 leave during her bond service, the period of medical leave availed from 06.03.2024 to 31.07.2024, cannot be adjusted during the one year bond service. He placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kavitha Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 1 SCC 421, wherein it was held that Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, holds that every woman shall be entitled to the payment of maternity benefit. Section 12 prohibits the employer from dismissing or discharging a woman employee who absents herself from work in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 27 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or agreement or contract of service.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 27 February, 2026

46. The Supreme Court in Dr. Kavita Yadav (supra) observed that continuation of maternity benefits is inbuilt in the said Act itself, where the benefits would survive and continue despite cessation of employment. What the legislation envisages is entitlement to maternity benefits, which accrues on fulfillment of the conditions specified in Section 5(2), which can travel even beyond the terms of the employment. In our considered view, these observations in the given factual matrix are both apposite and applicable.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 27 February, 2026

46. The Supreme Court in Dr. Kavita Yadav (supra) observed that continuation of maternity benefits is inbuilt in the said Act itself, where the benefits would survive and continue despite cessation of employment. What the legislation envisages is entitlement to maternity benefits, which accrues on fulfillment of the conditions specified in Section 5(2), which can travel even beyond the terms of the employment. In our considered view, these observations in the given factual matrix are both apposite and applicable.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 November, 2025

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon several judgements of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(M.D) No.860 of 2023, while referring to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kavita Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 1 SCC 421 held that Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, holds that every woman shall be entitled to the payment of maternity benefit. Section 12 forbids the employer from dismissing or discharging an employee when she absents herself from work in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 27 of the Act states that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or agreement or contract of service.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Dr.Hemakumari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep on 26 November, 2025

3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the very same issue has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.860 of 2023, dated 19.06.2025, wherein the Division Bench, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kavitha Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 1 SCC 421, directed the respondents therein to return the petitioner’s original certificates within a period of four weeks.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document
1   2 Next