Count maternity leave period of doctor as part of bond period: HC
Madurai: The 12-month maternity leave period of a doctor, who signed a bond to serve the state govt for two years while joining a PG course at Thanjavur Medical College, must be counted as part of the bond period, the
Madras high court
recently ruled, and directed the authorities to return her original certificates.
The court was hearing the appeal filed by E Krithikaa. She was allotted a seat in the MS (general surgery) course at Thanjavur College for the 2016-17 academic year. According to the prospectus, candidates must sign a bond for 40 lakh, undertaking to serve the state govt for at least two years.
After obtaining her PG degree, she was appointed as an assistant surgeon at Thittakudi govt hospital in 2019. She served for 12 months before going on maternity leave.
Since she served the govt for only 12 months, the authorities declined to return her original certificates. In 2022, she filed a petition seeking a direction to return her original certificates. However, the single bench dismissed her petition. Challenging the order, Krithikaa filed the present appeal in 2023.
A division bench of justice G R Swaminathan and justice K Rajasekar observed that an educational certificate is not a marketable commodity and hence cannot be retained or withheld for any reason.
"As per the conditions set out in the prospectus, the appellant has to serve the govt of Tamil Nadu in one of their hospitals for two years. This condition must give way to the rights conferred on women under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. This is especially so because the honourable Supreme Court declared that any woman has a fundamental right to the benefits arising out of her situation of maternity.
Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution," the judges observed.
The judges further noted, "The appellant is not a govt employee. She is only obliged to render bond service to the govt for two years. But a regular state govt employee is entitled to avail maternity leave for 12 months as per the amended service rules. We believe that the appellant is also entitled to the same treatment applicable to any govt employee.
When the fundamental right of the appellant is involved, she is entitled to the protective umbrella of not only Article 21 but also Article 14 of the Constitution.
"
The second half of the bond service turned out to be the maternity period for the appellant. Applying the legal fiction laid down by the Supreme Court, the appellant must be considered to have served the govt even during her maternity period. Allowing the appeal, the judges set aside the order of the single bench.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
19 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Maternity leave can be included in bond period: Madras High Court
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the state government to return the educational certificates of a doctor, which were withheld on the ground that she had gone on maternity leave without completing the mandatory two-year service done by postgraduate doctors. A bench of justices G R Swaminathan and K Rajasekar observed that the 12-month maternity period should be counted as part of the bond period. The judges made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by the doctor, E Krithikaa, challenging an order passed by a single judge rejecting her previous petition. During the admission to MS (General Surgery) at Thanjavur Government Medical College, Krithikaa signed a bond for the sum of Rs 40 lakh with an undertaking that upon completion of the three-year course, she would serve the government for at least two years. She was also required to submit her original certificates. After graduating in August 2019, she served as an assistant surgeon at Thittakudi GH for a year and went on maternity leave. Saying that she did not complete the bonded service period, the authorities refused to return her certificates, a decision upheld by the single judge. Hearing her appeal, the division bench cited several SC judgments declaring that every woman has a fundamental right to maternity benefits. The judges referred to various provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, especially section 27, which stated that provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any contract of service. Thus, the bench said the bond condition should give way to the rights conferred on women under the Act. It added that though the doctor is not a regular government employee, she is entitled to the same treatment.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Count maternity leave period of doctor as part of bond period: HC
Madurai: The 12-month maternity leave period of a doctor, who signed a bond to serve the state govt for two years while joining a PG course at Thanjavur Medical College, must be counted as part of the bond period, the Madras high court recently ruled, and directed the authorities to return her original certificates. The court was hearing the appeal filed by E Krithikaa. She was allotted a seat in the MS (general surgery) course at Thanjavur College for the 2016-17 academic year. According to the prospectus, candidates must sign a bond for 40 lakh, undertaking to serve the state govt for at least two years. After obtaining her PG degree, she was appointed as an assistant surgeon at Thittakudi govt hospital in 2019. She served for 12 months before going on maternity leave. Since she served the govt for only 12 months, the authorities declined to return her original certificates. In 2022, she filed a petition seeking a direction to return her original certificates. However, the single bench dismissed her petition. Challenging the order, Krithikaa filed the present appeal in 2023. A division bench of justice G R Swaminathan and justice K Rajasekar observed that an educational certificate is not a marketable commodity and hence cannot be retained or withheld for any reason. "As per the conditions set out in the prospectus, the appellant has to serve the govt of Tamil Nadu in one of their hospitals for two years. This condition must give way to the rights conferred on women under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. This is especially so because the honourable Supreme Court declared that any woman has a fundamental right to the benefits arising out of her situation of maternity. Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution," the judges observed. The judges further noted, "The appellant is not a govt employee. She is only obliged to render bond service to the govt for two years. But a regular state govt employee is entitled to avail maternity leave for 12 months as per the amended service rules. We believe that the appellant is also entitled to the same treatment applicable to any govt employee. When the fundamental right of the appellant is involved, she is entitled to the protective umbrella of not only Article 21 but also Article 14 of the Constitution. " The second half of the bond service turned out to be the maternity period for the appellant. Applying the legal fiction laid down by the Supreme Court, the appellant must be considered to have served the govt even during her maternity period. Allowing the appeal, the judges set aside the order of the single bench.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a day ago
- First Post
US Supreme Court upholds key preventive care provision in Obamacare
The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare read more The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act's preventive health care coverage requirements on Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans. The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare. The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate approved. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD President Donald Trump's administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor's law. The Justice Department said board members don't need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary. Medications and services that could have been affected include statins to lower cholesterol, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for women. The case came before the Supreme Court after an appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can't be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings. Well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot, argued the case. The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that ruling would still allow full-coverage requirements for some services, including mammography and cervical cancer screening. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
