logo
Orissa High Court's BIG remark: Contractual employees entitled to maternity leave

Orissa High Court's BIG remark: Contractual employees entitled to maternity leave

Mint5 days ago
Rejecting a writ appeal of the state government, a Division Bench of Orissa High Court recently upheld a three-year-old judgment passed by a single-judge Bench stating that maternity leave and associated benefits cannot be denied to a woman employed by the state on contractual basis.
In a recent ruling, the Division Bench of Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo affirmed the August 2022 decision of a single-judge Bench, which had ruled in favour of a contractual employee of the Health and Family Welfare Department whose maternity leave application from August 17, 2016, to February 12, 2017 had been rejected by her department.
The employee, being governed by the terms of a contract, was not entitled to maternity benefits, the state government had argued while challenging the earlier decision.
However, the Division Bench declined to accept this position and upheld the reasoning of the single-judge ruling.
"Maternity leave with pay or comparable social benefits are to be assured by the state through its policies and programmes, as India is a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)," the court observed.
The Bench emphasised the social significance of maternity and the fundamental role of both parents in child-rearing.
"It is said that God could not be everywhere and therefore, he created mothers. The idea of maternity leave is structured on 'zero separation' between a lactating mother and a breastfeeding baby," the judgment stated.
Citing the views of child psychiatrists and obstetricians, the HC noted that physical companionship between mother and child is mutually beneficial and promotes healthy bonding, which is essential for their wellbeing.
"A lactating mother has a fundamental right to breastfeed her baby during its formative years. Similarly, the baby has a fundamental right to be breastfed and brought up in a reasonably good condition. These two important rights form an amalgam from which the state's obligation to provide maternity benefits, such as paid leave, arises—within permissible resources," the court held.
Previous judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, which have affirmed that contractual employees are entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, were also referred to by the Bench.
Rejecting the state government's contention that only regular women civil servants qualify for maternity leave, the court observed: "Women employees for the purpose of availing such benefit do constitute one homogenous class and their artificial bifurcation founded on status of appointment falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How long can a suspect be kept in jail, HC asks Delhi Police in 2020 riots case
How long can a suspect be kept in jail, HC asks Delhi Police in 2020 riots case

The Hindu

time7 hours ago

  • The Hindu

How long can a suspect be kept in jail, HC asks Delhi Police in 2020 riots case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned the Delhi Police as to how long accused persons can be kept in jail while remarking that five years have elapsed since the February 2020 riots, yet the arguments on the framing of charges have still not been concluded. A Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made the remark while hearing the bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, an accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the north-east Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case. 'Five years have gone by. Even arguments on the charge have not been completed. In matters like this, with 700 witnesses, how much time can a person be kept inside [jail]?' said the Bench. The court's remarks came after the accused's advocate, Mehmood Pracha, sought relief for his client on the grounds of parity in relation to the co-accused in the trial. 'He [Ahmed] was arrested on June 24, 2020... He has already spent five years,' Mr. Pracha argued, citing the examples of co-accused Devangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal Tanha and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail in 2021 on the grounds of delay in the trial proceedings. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad contended that the prosecution could not be blamed for the delay, as there were several occasions when the matter was adjourned on the request of accused persons. The hearing will resume on Wednesday. 'Larger conspiracy' case The 'larger conspiracy' case is among the many pertaining to the riots and is so named because the Delhi police have claimed that the communal violence was part of a 'deep-rooted conspiracy'. Key accused in the case include former Delhi councillor Tahir Hussain and student activists Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi.

Politicians in power should not consider themselves kings, says Madras HC
Politicians in power should not consider themselves kings, says Madras HC

Business Standard

time18 hours ago

  • Business Standard

Politicians in power should not consider themselves kings, says Madras HC

The Madras High Court has decided to keep pending its suo motu case against former Tamil Nadu forest minister K Ponmudi for allegedly narrating an obscene joke referring to the Shaivite and Vaishnavite communities, reported by Bar & Bench. The decision comes despite the Tamil Nadu police having closed all related complaints. Justice P Velmurugan, presiding over the matter, remarked that politicians in power should not see themselves as kings or queens entitled to sovereign immunity. He made this comment after Advocate General PS Raman informed the court that Tamil Nadu police had closed all 124 complaints filed against the former minister over his alleged remarks. Justice Velmurugan remarked that nowadays, all politicians and individuals making public speeches seem to believe that Article 19 grants them absolute rights, as if "only the sky is the limit". He added that the court could not remain a silent spectator in such matters. "Everyone taking a mic in public must understand. A strong message should go. So many things are being said, as if they (politicians) are the kings of this country. Whatever they say, (they think) they can do no wrong. The court cannot watch these things silently," Justice P Velmurugan said. The controversy stems from a public event organised by Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, during which Ponmudi allegedly made a lewd joke referring to Shaivite and Vaishnavite religious symbols. A video of the speech went viral, drawing widespread condemnation, including from DMK MP Kanimozhi. In response, party president and Chief Minister MK Stalin removed Ponmudi from his role as DMK's deputy general secretary. Later, Ponmudi was forced to resign from the Cabinet as well. Case to be heard in August In response to the advocate general's argument that the complainants had the option to approach senior police officials regarding the closure of their cases, Justice P Velmurugan decided to keep the suo motu case pending. He also instructed that police officers must serve closure reports to all 124 complainants. The case is scheduled for further hearing on August 1, 2025.

Odisha HC grants bail to DRDO espionage case accused after nearly four years in jail
Odisha HC grants bail to DRDO espionage case accused after nearly four years in jail

New Indian Express

time20 hours ago

  • New Indian Express

Odisha HC grants bail to DRDO espionage case accused after nearly four years in jail

CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has granted bail to Basanta Kumar Behera, a key accused in the high-profile espionage case involving the alleged leak of classified defence information from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) of DRDO at Chandipur in Balasore district. Justice Gourishankar Satapathy delivered the judgment noting the prolonged pre-trial detention and absence of any misuse of earlier interim bail granted to him. However, Behera who is lodged in Balasore jail has not been released as on date, as the bail conditions have not been complied so far. Behera was ordered to furnish a bail bond of Rs 5 lakh with two solvent sureties and compliance with several conditions, including fortnightly attendance at the local police station for six months and a ban on leaving the trial court's jurisdiction without permission. He must also keep the court and investigating agency informed about his residence and contact details. Advocate Ashutosh Mishra argued on behalf of Behera. The espionage case is pending before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in Balasore. Behera, a contractual AC operator at ITR, was arrested in September 2021 along with several others on charges of spying for a Pakistani handler after allegedly being honey-trapped. The case, initially investigated by Odisha police and later transferred to the State CID-Crime Branch, involves allegations of compromising national security by passing sensitive missile testing information to foreign nationals. In his judgment, Justice Satapathy emphasised that bail should not be denied merely due to the gravity of the allegations, particularly when the accused has already spent a significant time in custody and the trial has not progressed. 'If the state is unable to provide a speedy trial, it should not oppose bail on the ground of seriousness of the offence,' he observed, citing Article 21 of the Constitution. The judge highlighted that Behera had earlier availed interim bail on two occasions and had not misused the concession. Given the delay in trial proceedings and the bail granted to co-accused Sachin Kumar Chhata and Tapas Ranjan Nayak, the court ruled that Behera had made out a strong case for bail.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store