RADHA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing O. P. No. 8452 of 1985. The appellant who is a female government servant delivered a child on 28th of May 1984, she being a teacher having had the benefit of the summer vacation, did not think of applying for maternity leave, from the date of delivery or from any reasonable period prior to the date of delivery. She made the application long after the delivery, that is, on the 25th of June 1984 seeking sanction of 90 days of maternity leave from 2-7-1984 to 29-9-1984 with permission to prefix and suffix. Leave prayed for was granted to her on the 19th of July 1984. She had also undergone sterilisation operation on 30-5-1984, a few days after her delivery. She claimed that she is entitled to 14 days leave on account of sterilisation operation, for the period from 8-10-1984 to 21-10-1984. The Assistant Educational Officer rejected her claim for leave on the ground of sterilisation operation and modified the maternity leave already granted and sanctioned the same for a period of 90 days from 28-5-1984 to 25-8-1984. Appeals against the said order were dismissed by the higher authorities as per Exts. P2 and P4. It is in this background that she had approached this court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition, she has come up with this appeal.

(2.) SRI. Siby Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that maternity leave for 90 days could be claimed by the appellant from the date of her choice as she has done in this case, that is, to commence from 2-7-1984 and to terminate on 29-9-1984. He contends that as long as this leave prayed for is in connection with or on the ground of maternity, the appellant is entitled to make the choice of the date and that therefore, the authorities were not justified in sanctioning the leave from the date of confinement ie. 28-5-1984.

(3.) THE next contention of Sri. Siby Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant is that the authorities committed an error in rejecting the appellant's prayer for grant of leave on the ground of sterilisation operation for a period of 14 days with effect from 8-10-1984 to 21-10-1984. Special leave on the ground of sterilisation can be granted to a female government servant under Appendix VII, Section II, R. 1 (vii) (b) which reads:- " A female Government Servant who undergoes Sterilisation operation will be granted Special Leave for a period not exceeding 14 days". As what is contemplated thereunder is leave to a female government servant who undergoes sterilisation operation, it is obvious that leave is required to be granted having regard to the suffering and the period required by the person undergoing the operation for recuperation. Hence leave on the ground of undergoing sterilisation operation can be granted from the date of sterilisation or from a point of time very proximate to the sterilisation operation. THE appellant having undergone sterilisation operation on the 30-5-1984 during the subsistence of her maternity leave, which expired only on the 25th August 1984, she would not be entitled to grant leave on the ground of sterilisation operation from a posterior date far away from the actual date of the operation of sterilisation. THE authorities were therefore, right in rejecting her request in this behalf also. For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. .