Latest news with #Krithikaa
News18
2 days ago
- General
- News18
Doctor's Maternity Leave Is Valid Bond Service, Says Madras High Court
Last Updated: The judgment further observed that rights under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 override any contrary conditions in employment contracts or bond agreements The Madras High Court recently held that maternity leave taken during the mandatory government bond service must be treated as valid service, directing the authorities to return the educational certificates of a postgraduate medical student who had been denied them for not completing the full tenure. A division bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and K Rajasekar delivered the verdict in an appeal filed by Dr. E. Krithikaa, who had completed her MS (General Surgery) from Thanjavur Medical College and served in a government hospital for a year before going on maternity leave. Dr Krithikaa had been appointed as an Assistant Surgeon following the completion of her postgraduation and served in Thittakudi Government Hospital for 12 months. However, as she did not complete the full two-year bond period — having gone on maternity leave — the state authorities refused to release her original certificates. Her initial writ petition seeking the return of documents was dismissed, prompting her to file a writ appeal. The division bench emphasised that maternity benefits are not merely welfare measures but a matter of constitutional right protected under Article 21. It relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decisions in Kavita Yadav v. State (2024) and Deepika Singh v. PGIMER (2023), which clarified that maternity leave must be recognised as part of employment service and that any attempt to deny this would violate both statutory protections and constitutional guarantees. Justice Swaminathan, writing for the bench, stated, 'Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21. The appellant, though not a regular government employee, is entitled to the same treatment under the law." Reinforcing the point with literary flair, the court quoted poet John Milton's famous line from Paradise Lost—'They also serve who only stand and wait"—to underscore that maternity is no less a form of national service than any physical presence at the workplace. Accordingly, the court set aside the single judge's earlier dismissal and directed the authorities to return Dr Krithikaa's certificates within four weeks. First Published:
Time of India
5 days ago
- Health
- 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.
