In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court addressed the issue of maternity leave entitlements for contractual female employees, reinforcing the principles of equality and non-discrimination in the workplace.
The petitioner, appointed as a Nurse (Grade II) on a contractual basis in 2003, applied for six months of maternity leave in 2008 following the birth of her daughter. Contrary to her request, she was granted only two months of leave, based on a November 6, 2007, circular from the Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan, which stipulated a two-month maternity leave for contractual employees.
Challenging this decision, the petitioner argued that an amendment to Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 had extended maternity leave to 180 days for all female employees, without distinguishing between regular and contractual staff. The High Court concurred with this position, asserting that once Rule 103 was amended, the state could not discriminate against contractual employees, as such discrimination violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the case, emphasized that motherhood is a universal experience that should not be influenced by the nature of employment. He noted that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to motherhood and the child's right to receive complete care and protection from their mother. Therefore, mothers should be entitled to the same maternity leave benefits, irrespective of whether they are employed on a regular or contractual basis.
The court further highlighted that limiting maternity leave based on employment status undermines equal opportunities for women working on a contractual basis. Such limitations could adversely affect the well-being of both the mother and the child, contradicting the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
In its ruling, the court directed the state to compensate the petitioner by paying her the salary for the remaining period of maternity leave, along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights of female employees and ensuring that maternity benefits are applied uniformly, regardless of the nature of employment.
This judgment aligns with similar rulings from other high courts. For instance, the Calcutta High Court has held that differentiating between contractual and permanent employees for the purpose of maternity leave is impermissible. Similarly, the Delhi High Court has recognized maternity rights as an integral part of a woman's identity, asserting that denying maternity benefits to contractual employees is unjustifiable.
These consistent judicial pronouncements reinforce the principle that maternity benefits are fundamental rights that should be uniformly accessible to all female employees, promoting gender equality and safeguarding the welfare of mothers and their children.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.