TANUJA TOLIA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by the petitioner, who is a lady Ayurvedic doctor in State Medical and Health Services, Uttarakhand. Her appointment though is not regular, but is on contractual basis, which is continuing since 2009. The contract which was for one year initially, has been periodically renewed or extended. The last extension was upto 28.02.2019 vide order dated 23.03.2018. As the petitioner was in the family way, she applied for her maternity leave, which was sanctioned to her from 08.04.2017 to 04.10.2017. After availing her maternity leave, the petitioner, however, did not join her service, but applied for Child Care Leave (from hereinafter referred to as the CCL). Her argument before the authorities was that in view of a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 99 of 2015 (Dr. Shanti Mehra Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2017 1 UD 191), even a contractual employee is entitled for CCL for a period of 730 days. Her application, all the same, was rejected by an order dated 24.05.2019 passed by the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, where the reasons given while denying CCL to the petitioner are that the petitioner had applied for a child care leave, but in view of Government Order dated 30.05.2011 a child care leave can only be given to a "regular Government employee" and not to employees who are working on contractual basis, as their service conditions are given in their contract, where there is no mention of child care leave. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court.

(2.) The petitioner relied upon the order dated 15.12.2016 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 99 of 2015, wherein the Division Bench, inter alia, had held that even a female employee who is working on a contractual basis is entitled for child care leave of 730 days. These directions were as under:

(3.) When the matter came up before the Division Bench of this Court, argument by the State was that the total period of employment of the petitioner is for a period of twelve months i.e. 365 days, and therefore it is not possible to grant child care leave for 730 days. The Division Bench was also not in agreement with the order of the earlier Division Bench of this Court, which supported the case of the petitioner, and it observed: