MUNISH PATIAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dtd. 19/12/2024, issued under the signatures of Director, Technical Education Vocational and Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation, having been filed by the petitioner, praying therein to grant paternity leave came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main relief:

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 4/8/2014, petitioner was engaged as Assistant Professor on tenure/period basis under Student Welfare Fund in respondent No.3/Institute. On 16/11/2021, services of the petitioner were brought on Government contract. On 19/4/2024, wife of the petitioner gave birth to a child. On 19/7/2024, services of the petitioner were regularized as Assistant Professor (ECL) in respondent No.3/Institute. After his being regularized, petitioner applied for paternity leave on 27/7/2024 to proceed w.e.f. 31/7/2024 to 14/8/2024, however, vide order dtd. 5/8/2024 (Annexure P-1), his request was rejected. On 6/8/2024, petitioner made another representation in the shape of an appeal by indicating the rule position, however, vide order dtd. 12/8/2024 (Annexure P-3), case of the petitioner was again rejected. Petitioner again made representation dtd. 13/9/2024 to respondent No.3, against the order dtd. 12/8/2024, but same was also rejected vide order dtd. 30/9/2024 (Annexure P-5), however, copy of rejection order was forwarded to the petitioner on 14/10/2024. Petitioner again represented to respondent No.2 on 11/11/2024, indicating entire sequence of events as well as annexing relevant rules and copy of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.647 of 2020, titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Sita Devi, decided on 12/6/2023, whereby Division Bench of this Court dealt with the issue of maternity/paternity leave, however, respondents again rejected the case of the petitioner vide impugned order dtd. 19/12/2024 (Annexure P-7), stating therein that judgment pressed into service by the petitioner is not applicable in his case. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for relief, as has been reproduced hereinabove.

(3.) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that bare perusal of judgment passed in Sita Devi (supra) clearly reveals that every female and male employee, whether appointed on regular basis, contractual basis, ad hoc basis, tenure/temporary basis have a fundamental right to reasonable duration of maternity leave as well as paternity leave, child care leave (CCL) to promote motherhood and child care under Article 21 Constitution of India read with Article 42 of the Constitution of India, but yet, respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of paternity leave.