Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
Dr Shabana Gandhi vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 9 February, 2024 cites

Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 29 May, 2017

8. This Tribunal has perused R-2 in CWP No. 6098 of 2021 decided on 09.12.2021 (R-2). This writ petition was against the execution petition filed before this Tribunal. Respondents 7 have relied upon R-2, whereby, the execution petition filed by the applicant has been dismissed on the ground that the order of this Tribunal has been complied with. It is clear that the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1013 / 2019 decided on 19.11.2019 A-10 has attained finality, wherein, it has been clearly held by this Tribunal while relying upon the judgement passed by the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 24627 of 2017 titled as Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya Vs. State of UP and Others that the benefit of child care leave is applicable to all the female employees irrespective of nature of job of employment i.e. permanent/ temporary/ adhoc/ or contractual basis. The applicant had applied for CCL but the same was rejected by respondents.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 18 - K Murari - Full Document

Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 151, 211 & 212. Mr Puneet ... on 12 September, 2022

(1) This application has been filed by applicant against order No. 1287-DHE-UT-C3-12(15) Misc/4659 dated 01.12.2021, copy Annexure A-1, passed by Respondent No.2, whereby the request of the applicant for grant of Child Care Leave w.e.f. 28.11.2021 to 12.12.2021 for Class 10th examination of her daughter aged 16 years has been rejected without any reason. The brief facts leading to filing of this OA are the respondents issued advertisement for engagement of Assistant Professor in various subjects on contact basis. The applicant being qualified applied for post. The respondent No.3 appointed the applicant as Assistant Professor in Economics on contract basis vide appointment letter dated 31.08.2009 for the session 2009-10 and the applicant joined as such on 31.08.2009. A copy of appointment letter dated 31.08.2009 is attached as Annexure A-2. That in the session of 2010-11, fresh appointment letter dated 20.08.2010 issued to the applicant as Assistant Professor in Economics on contract basis after putting the break. A copy of appointment letter dated 20.08.2010 is attached as Annexure A-3. contractual period was of one year, applicant along with others approached this Hon'ble Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.402/CH/2011 titled as Nandini Sharma and others Vs Union of India and others, which came up preliminary hearing on 02.05.2011 and this Hon'ble Tribunal allowed the aforesaid O.A. filed by the applicant and others vide order dated 02.05.2011 in terms of Vandana Jain‟s case. A copy of order dated 02.05.2011 is 3 is attached as Annexure A-4. Prior to joining service as Assistant Professor on Contract, the applicant solemnized marriage on 21.11.2002 with Sh. Sanjeev Bhateja. Out of their wedlock, one daughter was born on 31.07.2005 namely (Ms. Vidhi). She is student of 10th Class and studying in Bhavan Vidyalaya, sector-27, Chandigarh and her CBSE examination for Term-1 was to start from 28.11.2021 till 11.12.2021. Copies of date sheet and certificate issued by the school are attached as Annexure A- 6 and A-7.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 315 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Female Workers (Muster Roll) And Amr on 8 March, 2000

Xxxxx From a perusal of the aforesaid Government Orders, it is clear that the State Government has adopted same policy as is enforced by the Central Government for grant of Maternity Leave as well as Child Care Leave to its employees. Maternity benefit is a social insurance and the Maternity Leave is given for maternal and child health and family support. On a perusal of different provisions of the Act, 1961 as well as the policy of the Central Government to grant Child Care Leave and the Government Orders issued by the State of U.P. adopting the same for its female employees, we do not find anything contained therein which may entitle only to women employees appointed on regular basis to the benefit of Maternity Leave or Child Care Leave and not those, who are engaged on casual basis or on muster roll on daily wage basis. The aforesaid view taken by us find full support from the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) & Anr., (2000) 3 SCC 224. It may be relevant to produce paragraph 27 from the said report. "The provisions of the Act which have been set out above would indicate that they are wholly in consonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy, as set out in Article 39 and in other Articles, specially Article 42.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 160 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1