REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Smt. Sadhna Agrawal, W/O Chhatradhari Agrawal, Aged About 49 Years, Working As Lecturer, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Utai, District Durg (C.G.) Appellant

V/S

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF QUINTAVALLE) V. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH [REFERRED TO]
GAMBART V. BALL [REFERRED TO]
FITZPATRICK V. STERLING HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD. [REFERRED TO]
IN RE,REGULATION AND CONTROL OF RADIO COMMUNICATIONS IN CANADA [REFERRED TO]
R V. BRISLAN,EX PARTE,WILLIAMS [REFERRED TO]
U.K. V. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY [REFERRED TO]
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL V. OAKLEY [REFERRED TO]
COMBEL COMMODITIES LTD. V. SIPOREX TRADE [REFERRED TO]
MCCARTAN TURKINGTON BREEN (A FIRM) V. TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
RANDAL N. GRAHM,A UNIFIED THEORY OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION [REFERRED TO]
CROWN ALUMINIUM WORKS VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
SENIOR ELECTRIC INSPECTOR VS. LAXMINARAY CHOPRA [REFERRED TO]
J K COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS CO LIMITED VS. LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF INDIA IIIRD BRANCH LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
B SHAH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI VIDEO THEATRES MANGALA TALKIES MAHA LAXMI VIDEO SANGAM VIDEO TALKIES SAMRAT VIDEO PARLOUR LOHARU VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. S J CHOUDHARY [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. FEMALEWORKERS MUSTER ROLL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PRAFUL B DESAI [REFERRED TO]
LIVERPOOL AND LONDON S P AND I ASSOCIATION LIMITED VS. M V SEA SUCCESS [REFERRED TO]
ANUJ GARG VS. HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BABY MANJI YAMADA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMA PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
HEMA VIJAY MENON VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To become a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realise the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in performing her duties at the workplace while carrying a baby in the womb or while rearing up the child after birth.

(2.) The above-stated observation laid down by S. Saghir Ahmad, J, speaking for the Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and another, (2000) 3 SCC 224 aptly and squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

(3.) The superb question of law that emanates for consideration is whether a female Government servant/mother is entitled to avail maternity leave under Rule 38 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (for short 'the Rules of 2010'), though she begets child through the surrogacy procedure.

Click here to view full judgment.

SMT. SADHNA AGRAWAL, W/O CHHATRADHARI AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS LECTURER, GOVT. GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, UTAI, DISTRICT DURG (C.G.) Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MAHANADI BHAVAN, MANTRALAYA, NEW RAIPUR, DISTRICT RAIPUR (C.G.)

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address