BINDHU GEORGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was selected and appointed for the post of 'pharmacist' on contract basis for a period of 11 months as early as in the year 2006 and accordingly, she joined duty on 03.10.2006 in the ECHS Polyclinic, Kollam under the third respondent. Shortly afterwards, the petitioner had to apply for maternity leave on 12.08.2011 and she gave birth to a baby on 25.08.2011. But in the meanwhile, her application for maternity leave came to be rejected and the service was terminated with effect from 24.08.2011 as per Ext.P5 order passed by the second respondent. Though the petitioner tried to explain the position by submitting Ext.P6 representation on 06.09.2011, the same did not turn to be fruitful, which made the petitioner to approach the 'Women's Commission' by filing Ext.P7 complaint. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P5 contending that, the stand taken by the respondent is per se wrong and illegal, being contrary to the statutory prescriptions and also the law declared by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and another [2000 (3) SCC 224].

(2.) PURSUANT to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to join duty on 03.04.2012, but just after four days, the service was again put to an end on 07.04.2012 for the reason that, the original contractual period as per Ext.P2 had come to an end by that date, the same having been only for a period of 11 months. In the place of the petitioner another person has been accommodated on 'contract basis' and by virtue of the course pursued by the respondents, the petitioner has virtually lost the opportunity to continue in the post and hence seeks for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, irrespective of the nature of engagement, whether it be temporary or permanent, the persons like the petitioner are entitled to have the benefit of 'maternity leave' under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 and as such, the stand taken by the respondents is liable to be intercepted. After hearing, this Court finds that, the legal position having been declared by the Apex Court in unequivocal terms as per the decision cited supra, it has necessarily to be held that the petitioner is entitled to have the maternity leave sanctioned and as such, the rejection of the same subsequently leading to Ext.P5 termination of the service is not correct or sustainable.