Whether Women Employee is entitled to claim Maternity Leave for period of Six Months [CASE LAW]

Constitution of India - Articles 15 (3) and 42 - Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Section 5 - Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 - Right to payment of maternity benefit - Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief - the petitioner is entitled for maternity leave for period of six months but wholly illegally leave was granted only for a period of three months.


The request was made by the petitioner to grant her maternity leave for 180 days was ignored by the District Basic Education Officer Bijnor while granting leave for 90 days. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by the aforesaid authority that under which circumstances the request for grant of maternity leave for a period of 180 days was turned down and the maternity leave was granted only for a period of 90 days. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that the maternity leave was rightly granted only for a period of 90 days since it is not possible in law to grant maternity leave to the petitioner for a period of 180 days in view of the Government Orders dated 20.11.2017 and 3.1.2018. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Rachna Chaurasia (supra) directed the State Government to grant maternity leave to all female with full pay of 180 days, irrespective of nature of employment, i.e., permanent, temporary/ad hoc or contractual basis. State-respondent was further directed to grant Child Care Leave of 730 days to all female employees, who are appointed on regular basis, contractual basis, ad hoc or temporary basis having minor children with the rider that the child should not be more than 18 years of age or older.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.
19.04.2019
WRIT - A No. - 3486 of 2019
Anshu Rani v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avadhesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prem Prakash Yadav
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with a prayer to issue a Mandamus directing the respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor to grant the petitioner maternity leave with honorarium from 30.12.2018 to 31.3.2019. A further prayer is also made to issue a mandamus directing the aforesaid respondents to decide the application submitted by the petitioner on 21.12.2018 forthwith.
2. Facts as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Anudeshak on 20.07.2013 at Purwa Madhyamik Vidyalaya Gowali Noorpur, District Bijnor. Subsequently, The petitioner was married with one Sunil Kumar on 18.2.2018. Due to wedlock, the petitioner has conceived and to be born a female child. In this regard Doctor advised to the petitioner to take complete bed rest. In this regard an application dated 26.9.2018 was submitted by the petitioner before the Block Education Officer as well as the District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor to grant her maternity leave from 1.10.2018 to 31.3.2019. On the aforesaid application, the District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor granted maternity leave to the petitioner only for 90 days, i.e., 1.10.2018 to 29.12.2018 with honorarium. The request was made by the petitioner to grant her maternity leave for 180 days was ignored by the District Basic Education Officer Bijnor while granting leave for 90 days. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by the aforesaid authority that under which circumstances the request for grant of maternity leave for a period of 180 days was turned down and the maternity leave was granted only for a period of 90 days.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Parliament in the twelfth year of Republic of India has enacted an Act namely Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The aforesaid Act was amended in the year 2017 known as Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. By the aforesaid amendment, the period for grant of maternity leave as mentioned in the Act 1961 is twelfth weeks has been increased from 8 weeks to 26 weeks. The provisions contained in the maternity Benefit Act 1961 has been duly adopted by the State Government and the Government issued orders in this regard from time to time. Some of the Government Orders are appended along with the writ petition as Annexure 5.
4. Since the maternity leave for the period of 90 days was only granted to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation addressed to the District Basic Education officer, Bijnor on 21.12.2018, since no order has been passed on the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon following judgments in support of his contentions:-
I. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and another reported in 2000 (3) SCC 224.
II. Dr. Shikha Jain Vs. State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Higher Edu.Lko. & Ors. Service Bench No.1206 of 2012 decided on 29.8.2012.
III. Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24627 of 2017.
6. A counter affidavit was filed by the contesting respondents namely respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that the maternity leave was rightly granted only for a period of 90 days since it is not possible in law to grant maternity leave to the petitioner for a period of 180 days in view of the Government Orders dated 20.11.2017 and 3.1.2018.
7. A rejoinder affidavit to the aforesaid counter affidavit was also filed by the petitioner stating therein that the Government Orders dated 20.11.2017 as well as 3.1.2018 appended along with the counter affidavit are not Government Orders but only the circulars which were issued by the respondents. It is further contended that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the provisions contained in the maternity Act, 1961 as has been amended by Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to Act No.6).
It is further contended that in view of the amendment made by the Parliament in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 any order contrary to the same is liable to be ignored.
8. Heard Sri Avadesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and Sri Prem Prakash Yadav learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
9. Our Constitution in its preamble, promises social and economic justice. Fundamental rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. Article 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Article 15 provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Clause (3) of this Article empowers the State to make any special provision for women and children. The said clause reads as under.
"15 (3). Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children."
The Directive Principles of State Policy is contained in Part IV of the Constitution, which though are not enforceable by law, but is nevertheless available for determining the legal efficacy of the actions of the State. Article 42 contained in Part IV of the Constitution reads as under.
"42. Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternityrelief.- The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief."
10. In consonance with the provisions of Article 42, Parliament has made the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Since Article 42 specifically speaks of "just and humane conditions of work" and "maternity relief, the validity of an executive or administrative action in denying maternity benefit has to be examined on the anvil of Article 42 which, though not enforceable at law, is nevertheless available for determining the legal efficacy of the action complained of.
Section 2 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 deals with the applicability of the Act. Section 3 contains definitions. The word "child" as defined in Section 3(b) includes a 'still-born' child. "Delivery" as defined in Section 3(c) means the birth of a child. "Maternity Benefit" has been defined in Section 3(h), which means the payment referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 5. "Woman" has been defined in Clause (o) of Section 3 which means "a woman employed, whether directly or through any agency, for wages in any establishment." "Wages" have been defined in Clause (n) of Section 3 which provides, inter alia, as under :
"3 (n) 'wages' means all remuneration paid or payable in cash to a woman......".
Section 5 provides, inter alia, as under :
"5. Right to payment of maternity benefit - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every woman shall be entitled to, and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wage for the period of her actual absence, that is to say, the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day.
Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section, the average daily wage means the average of the woman's wages payable to her for the days on which she has worked during the period of three calendar months immediately preceding the date from which she absents herself on account of maternity, the minimum rates of wages fixed or revised under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 or ten rupees, whichever is the highest.
(2) No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit, for a period of not less than eighty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery.
Explanation - For the purpose of claculating under this sub-section the days on which a woman has actually worked in the establish-ment, the days for which she has been laid off or was on holidays declared under any law for the time being in force to be holidays with wages during the period of twelve months immediately preced-ing the date of her expected delivery shall be taken into account.
(3) The maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be twelve weeks of which not more than six weeks shall precede the date of her expected delivery.
Section 5A provides that if the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is applied or becomes applicable to the establishment where a woman is employed, such woman shall continue to be entitled to receive the maternity benefits under this Act so long as she does not become qualified to claim maternity benefits under Section 50 of that Act.
It may be stated that Section 50 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 provides as under :
"50. Maternity benefit - The qualification of an insured woman to claim maternity benefit, the conditions subject to which such benefit may be given, the rates and period thereof shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government."
Section 5B of the Maternity Act speaks of payment of maternity benefit in certain cases. Section 6 provides notice of claim for maternity benefit and payment thereof. Section 8 provides that every womanentitled to maternity benefit under this Act shall also be entitled to receive from her employer a medical bonus of 250 rupees, if no pre-natal confinement or post-natal care is provided by the employer free of charge.
Reference may also be made to the decision taken by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendation of the VIth Central Pay Commission introducing Child Care Leave in respect of the Central Government employee vide office memorandum No. 13018/2/2008-Estt. (L) dated 11.09.2008, which was issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training). Relevant clause (c) reads as under.
"(c) Women employees having minor children may be granted Child Care Leave by an authority competent to grant leave, for a maximum period of two years (i.e. 730 days) during their entire service for taking care of upto two children whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness etc. Child Care Leave shall not be admissible if the child is eighteen years of age or older. During the period of such leave, the women employees shall be paid leave salary equal to pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. It may be availed of in more than one spell. Child Care Leave shall not be debited against the leave account. Child Care Leave may also be allowed for the third year as leave not due (without production of medical certificate.) It may be combined with leave of the kind due and admissible."
11. The aforesaid decision of the Central Government has been adopted by the State of U.P. for its employees vide Government Order dated 08.12.2008 and 24.03.2009. Subsequently, certain modifications being made by the Central Government, the same was also adopted by the State Government vide Government Order dated 11th April, 2011. The aforesaid Government Order is being reproduced hereinunder.

12. From a perusal of the aforesaid Government Order, it is clear that the State Government has adopted same policy as is enforced by the Central Government for grant of Maternity Leave as well as Child Care Leave to its employees.
13. The maternity leave is a social insurance. The maternity leave is given for maternal and child health and family support. From perusal of the different provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as amended in the year 2017 as well as the policy of the Central Government to grant child care leve and Government orders issued by the State Governments in the State of U.P. adopting the same for its female employees, I am of the firm opinion that the female employees of the State of U.P. are entitled for the benefits of the maternity leave as contained in the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 as amended by the Maternity Benefit (Amendement) Act, 2017.
14. Ordinarily, in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, it was provided that a female employee is entitled for the maternity leave for a period of 12 weeks only. The relevant Section of the Act is quoted below:-
5. Right to payment of maternity benefit. –
(3) The maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be twelve weeks, that is to say, six weeks up to and including the day of her delivery and six weeks immediately following that day
15. The Parliament introduced the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 by way of Act No.6 of 2017. By way of aforesaid amendment in Sub Section 3 of Section 5 words “Twenty-six weeks of which not more than eight weeks” have been replaced. The relevant part of the amended Act is quoted below:-
2. In the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 3, after clause (b), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:—
‘(ba) “commissioning mother” means a biological mother who uses her egg to create an embryo implanted in any other woman;’.
3. In the principal Act, in section 5,—
(A) in sub-section (3)—(i) for the words ‘‘twelve weeks of which not more than six weeks’’, the words ‘‘twenty-six weeks of which not more than eight weeks’’ shall be substituted;
16. After going through the large number of judgment and the matter in great detail, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Rachna Chaurasia (supra) directed the State Government to grant maternity leave to all female with full pay of 180 days, irrespective of nature of employment, i.e., permanent, temporary/ad hoc or contractual basis. Staterespondent was further directed to grant Child Care Leave of 730 days to all female employees, who are appointed on regular basis, contractual basis, ad hoc or temporary basis having minor children with the rider that the child should not be more than 18 years of age or older. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below:-
Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed with the following directions.
1. Respondents are directed to grant Maternity Leave to the petitioner with full pay as applied within 8 weeks from today.
2. The respondent-State is also directed to grant Maternity Leave to all family employees with full pay for 180 days, irrespective of nature of employment, i.e., permanent, temporary/ad hoc or contractual basis.
3. State-respondent is also directed to grant Child Care Leave of 730 days to all female employees, who are appointed on regular basis, contractual basis, ad hoc or temporary basis having minor children with the rider that the child should not be more than 18 years of age or older.
17. Insofar as the judgement of the Supreme Court is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation Delhi (supra) after taking into consideration the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations on 10th December, 1948 set in motion the universal thinking that human rights are supreme and ought to bepreserved at all costs. This was followed by a series of Conventions. On 18th of December, 1979, the United Nations adopted the "Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women". The Supreme Court in this case further held that the Maternity Benefit Act, 2016 should also be provided to the women/muster roll employees also. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:-
"6. Not long ago, the place of a woman in rural areas has been traditionally her home; but the poor illiterate women forced by sheer poverty now come out to seek various jobs so as to overcome the economic hardship. They also take up jobs which involve hard physical labour. The female workers who are engaged by the Corporation on muster roll have to work at the site of construction and repairing of roads. Their services have also been utilised for digging of trenches. Since they are engaged on daily wages, they, in order to earn their daily bread, work even in advance stage of pregnancy and also soon after delivery, unmindful of detriment to their health or to the health of the new-born. It is in this background that we have to look to our Constitution which, in its Preamble, promises social and economic justice. We may first look at the Fundamental Rights contained in Chapter III of the Constitution. Article 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Dealing with flu's Article vis-a-vis the Labour Laws, this Court in Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd v. Workmen, AIR (1967) SC 948=[1967] 1 SCR 652, has held that labour to whichever sector it may belong in a particular region and in a particular industry will be treated on equal basis. Article 15 provides that the 'State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Clause (3) of this Article provides as under: -"(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children."
33. A just social order can be achieved only when inequalities are obliterated and everyone is provided what is legally due. Women who constitute almost half of the segment of our society have to be honoured and treated with dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood. Whatever be the nature of their duties, their avocation and the place where they work; they must be provided all the facilities to which they are entitled. To become a mother is the most natural phenomena in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realise the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in per11 forming her duties at the work place while carrying a baby in the womb or while rearing up the child after birth. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 aims to provide all these facilities to a working woman in a dignified manner so that she may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, peaceably, undeterred by the fear of being victimised for forced absence during the pre or post-natal period.
37. Delhi is the capital of India. No other City or Corporation would be more conscious than the City of Delhi that India is a signatory to various International covenants and treaties. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on 10th of December, 1948, set in motion the universal thinking that human rights are supreme and ought to be preserved at all costs. This was followed by a series of Conventions. On 18th of December, 1979, the United Nations adopted the "Convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women".
Article 11 of this Convention provides as under :-
"Article 11
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in particular;
(a) The right to work as an inalienable right of all human beings;
(b) The right to the same employment opportunities, including the application of the same criteria for selection in matters of employment;
(c) The right to free choice of profession and employment, the right to promotion, job security and all benefits and conditions of service and the right to receive vocational training and retraining, including apprenticeships, advanced vocational training and recurrent training;
(d) The right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work;
(e) The right to social security, particularly in cases of retirement, unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age and other incapacity to work, as well as the right to paid leave.
(f) The right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of reproduction.
2. In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures :
(a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave and discrimination in dismissals on the basis of marital status;
(b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances;
(c) To encourage the provision of the necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life, in particular through promoting the establishment and development of a network of child-care facilities;
(d) To provide special protection to women during pregnancy in types of work proved to be harmful to them.
3. Protective legislation relating to matters covered in this article shall be reviewed periodically in the light of scientific and technological knowledge and shall be revised, repealed or extended as necessary."
[Emphasis supplied]
38. These principles which are contained in Article 11, reproduced above, have to be read into the contract of service between Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the women employees (muster roll); and so read these employees immediately become entitled to all the benefits conceived under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. We conclude our discussion by providing that the direction issued by the Industrial Tribunal shall be complied with by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by approaching the State Government as also the Central Government for issuing necessary Notification under the Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, if it has not already been issued. In the meantime, the benefits under the Act shall be provided to the women (muster roll) employees of the Corporation who have been working with them on daily wages."
18. Insofar as the judgement delivered by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Service Bench No.1206 of 2012 Dr. Shikha Jain Vs.State of U.P. decided on 29.8.2012 is concerned, it was held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation Delhi (supra), the petitioner/employee has a right to avail the maternity leave and rejected the objection raised by the Standing Counsel that a contractual employee/honorarium employee is not entitled for maternity leave. The purpose of the maternity leave does not change with the nature of employment. It is concerned with human rights of the women. The employers and courts are bound under the constitutional scheme, guaranteeing right to life, including right to live with dignity and to protect the health of both the mother and child to preserve these rights. Relevant paragraphs of this judgement are reproduced below:-
“The petitioner has a right to avail the maternity leave, which is applicable to regularly employed lecturers in the Government Degree Colleges.
Although the respondents have not yet taken a decision on the leave application, we do not find that the objection taken by the Standing Counsel, that a contractual employee/honorarium employee is not entitled to maternity leave, is justified. The purpose of the maternity leave does not change with the nature of employment. It is concerned with human rights of the women. The employers and courts are bound under the constitutional scheme, guaranteeing right to life, including right to live with dignity and to protect the health of both the mother and child to preserve these rights.”
19. The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P. (C) No.22007 of 2012 (A) (Mini.K.T. Vs. Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, decided on 21th December, 2017 had dealt with in great detail theory of motherhood. It is held in the aforesaid the motherhood is a matter of civilization. It is further held in the aforesaid judgement that family as a social institution is considered as a backbone of the society. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below:-
1. “Motherhood is the mother of all civilization. Family as a social institution is considered as the backbone of the society. Family is the first model of political society (Rosseau on the Social Contract). When people settled down and started living as a commune, the family was the foundation of such commune, and women was the center of such family. No civilization passed without recognising the power of mother and often figuratively projected her as Goddess.
(See our own glorious past, as described by Jasodhara Bagchi, a feminist writer in her book, "Interrogating motherhood"):
"The celebration of motherhood has happened in most cultures in the world, and Indian culture is no exception. The oldest available cultural artifacts in the pre-Aryan civilization in Mohenjo-daro and Harappa bear testimony to the mother cult.The principle of fertility represented by the embodiment of mother is the oldest testimony to the sense of continuity of the species. Not just birthing but the process of nurturance that makes it incumbent upon homo sapiens to recognize the value of the mother."
A child born to a family sees the world first through the eyes of his mother and develops his cognitive skills through the vision of his family. In earlier centuries, predominantly, in agrarian society, the role of woman was limited to taking care of children, household and family. Social conditions of modern family underwent transformation due to industrialisation and urbanisation. As a result, the social and legal concept related to the society also got changed. Motherhood then has become a contentious issue in the modern society, particularly, in economic frontier, as the competing market interests override notions of culture and social justice like gender equity. Identity of a women is often tangled within the patriarchal structure of a commercially or profit motivated enterprise which dare to see mothering or family responsibility remain subordinate to their interest. Complexity of working environment as above is designed by an architecture without adhering to rules of gender equality; often overwhelmingly to suit men.”
23. Coming back to the question of dignity, those dignity has to be understood in the societal background. Indian cultural and traditional practices would go to show that motherhood is an essential part of family responsibility. International Human Rights Law thus protect dignity of woman and also family. The Constitution thus demand interpretation of its provisions in that background. Person-hood of a woman as mother is her acclaim of individuality essentially valued as liberty of her life. This was so designed by culture, tradition and civilisation. Mother's role in taking care of the child has been considered as an honour; she enjoyed such status because of her position in respect of the child. If on any reason she could not attend her workplace due to her duties towards child (compelling circumstances), the employer has to protect her personhood as "mother". If not that, it will be an affront to her status and dignity. No action is possible against a woman employee for her absence from duty on account of compelling circumstances for taking care of her child. No service Regulations can stand in the way of a woman for claiming protection of her fundamental right of dignity as a mother. Any action by an employer can be only regarded as a challenge against the dignity of a woman. Motherhood is not an excuse in employment but motherhood is a right which demandsprotection in given circumstances. What employer has to consider is whether her duty attached to mother prevented her from attending employment or not. As already adverted above, motherhood is an inherent dignity of woman, which cannot be compromised.
The High Court of Madras in W.P. No.12660 of 2017 (U. Ishwarya Vs. Director of Medical Education, Directorate of Medical Education and Others), decided on 22nd December, 2017 had also dealt with in great detail theory of motherhood. It is held in the aforesaid judgement that maternity leave cannot be denied and the period of maternity leave should not be kept apart or executed from service and maternity leave has to be excluded from the period of service is “null and void”. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below:-
“…it is not only the fundamental right of the lady to give birth to a child and also necessary for existence of mankind and without a lady, a child could not be born in the world. Even nature requires a child birth through a lady. When that is the position, the petitioner (a lady doctor in the instant case) cannot be denied the maternity leave and the period of maternity leave, which the petitioner availed, should not be kept apart or excluded from two years of service. Even in their two years of service, if maternity leave is sanctioned, the maternity leave period should be deemed to be the service period. Any rule or regulation which goes against the same is null and void,”
20. In view of the facts as narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for maternity leave for period of six months but wholly illegally leave was granted only for a period of three months.
21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.2/District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor to provide the petitioner maternity leave with honorarium with effect from 30.12.2018 to 31.3.2019. The Writ Petition stands allowed.
22. No order as to costs.
Previous Post Next Post