PRAMILA RAWAT Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was appointed on the post of class-IV employee after selection and fulfilling the necessary formalities vide appointment order dated 4th June, 1993, has approached this Court claiming the relief of continuous service being allowed to her and for consideration of her case for regularizatlon/absorptlon in service. The third and very important question, which has been raised in the petition, is regarding the grant of maternity leave to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis by the District Judge. Lucknow and immediately on the receipt of her appointment letter dated 4th June, 1993 she was permitted to join her duties. The appointment letter specifically mentioned that service of the petitioner was only for three months or tilt regular selection is made whichever is earlier. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed against a regular post in a clear vacancy which was filled through selection and looking to the good performance of the petitioner, her services were extended from time to time. The last such extension was granted up to 30th June. 1998 as is evident from Annexure-CA-1 filed along with the counter-affidavit by the opposite parties. The petitioner thus continued to work without any break and to the satisfaction of the authorities and her service period was extended from time to time as stated above. In the meantime, the petitioner moved an, application for grant of maternity leave to her on 16th April, 1998 as the tentative date of delivery suggested by the doctor was 17th April, 1998 and bed rest with effect from 16th April, 1998. The said application for grant of maternity leave remained unattended by the District Judge and. therefore, the petitioner was compelled to discharge her duties till 19th April, 1998. However, when things became unbearable, the petitioner had to get herself hospitalized for delivery (which was imminent) on 20th April, 1998. The petitioner gave birth to a daughter on 20th April, 1998 and she was discharged from the hospital on 22nd April, 1998. The petitioner could not join her duties up to 15th July. 1998 and it was only on 15th July, 1998 that the Medical Superintendent of the hospital issued a fitness certificate to the petitioner and permitted her to join her duties but the District Judge did not respond to her request. The petitioner made various representations in this regard but no response was given to the representations with the result that she moved one representation dated 20th July, 1998 by registered post also. The petitioner had come to know that under oral instructions of the District Judge, the head clerk was directed not to take work from the petitioner as her services stood terminated. The petitioner was made to run from one officer to other for finding out the reason for not permitting her to work and also to have the copy of the order of termination which has been passed. The petitioner even was not served with any written order of termination of her services but she was not allowed to resume duties.

(3.) The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the class IV employees who were appointed subsequent to the date of appointment of the petitioner have been allowed to continue but the petitioner has been discriminated and she has not been allowed to continue in service. The name of such employees who were appointed after the year 1993 in similar manner has been given in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition, namely. Lalit Kumar Srivastava, Uppal Singh Yadav and others.