NIMMY Vs. KERALA VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in is the appellant before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-02-2019 of the learned Single Judge. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

(2.) The appellant is stated to be a skilled causal worker who was appointed as such in the Kerala Agricultural University in 2003. It is stated that consequent to the formation of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, she was transferred as a casual worker under the said University in 2010. During the period between 24-03-2016 and 15-06-2016 the petitioner availed, and was sanctioned, a maternity leave and it is not in dispute that she rejoined duty as a casual labourer on 16-06-2016 itself. It is also not in dispute that during the leave period she received the maternity benefits from the respondent University for a total period 84 days.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was as regards the ranking of casual labourers effected by the respondent University, on the basis of the number of days actually worked as casual labourer. It was pointed out by the petitioner that, Ext.P1 Leave Rules contemplated that casual labourers who had discharged service of 160 days in a year would be entitled upto 12 weeks of maternity leave which would be treated as continuous service and that it was further made clear in the said Rules that the average daily wage together with the D.A that was paid to the casual labourer for the period of 3 months (90 days) immediately prior to the date of delivery would be basis for computation of the maternity benefit. It was her case that while the respondent University had granted her the maternity benefits as above, while drawing up the seniority list of casual labourers prepared based on the number of days actually worked by them, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.68 as against Sl.No.23 which she claimed. This change in the seniority position apparently arose on account of the respondent University having computed the number of working days during the maternity leave period by reckoning only 6 days in a week as against 7 days in a normal week. It was the contention of the petitioner that in as much as the leave Rules mandated a grant of maternity leave computed in weeks, the respondent University could not have taken 6 days as constituting those weeks for the purposes of the seniority list aforementioned.