Cwp No.22538 of 2013 Vs. State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

CWP No.22538 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22538 of 2013 DATE OF DECISION : 09.10.2013 Kiran Bala ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Ms.Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner.

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court, who is a regular employee of the Haryana Government working as a Social Studies Mistress in Education Department and prays for grant of maternity leave on the birth of her 3rd child as per the provisions contained under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').which was not granted to her.

The petitioner had applied for maternity leave for 3rd child on 17.07.2013 before she had actually delivered the child on 08.08.2013.

Her grievance is that she had been compelled to take medical leave without pay.

The petitioner would rely on a judgment of the Division Mittal Manju 2013.10.11 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22538 of 2013 -2- Bench in Ruksana v.

State of Haryana and otheRs.CWP No.4229 of 2011 as completely governing her issue, wherein the Court had ruled that Note 4 to Rule 8.127 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I Part I that denied the benefit to a mother beyond 2 children would stand eclipsed by the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act and that it cannot be given effect to.

The Bench ruled that the petitioner in that writ petition could not be deprived of the maternity benefit for the birth of the 3rd child.

The petitioner made representations dated 02.09.2013 (P-4) and 13.09.2013 (P-5) to respondent No.3 requesting for grant of maternity leave but the 3rd respondent has not responded nor taken any action.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no order has been passed, it would be appropriate that a direction may go to the respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid representations within a time bound period.

This Court is of the view that this is an appropriate case involving valuable rights of the petitioner in which a direction should go to the respondents to consider and decide the issue raised by the petitioner in the representations and in the present petition.

In view of the nature of the order passed, it is not found necessary to issue notice to the respondents or to call for a reply since Mittal Manju 2013.10.11 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22538 of 2013 -3- this order would not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Consequently, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representations dated 02.09.2013 and 13.09.2013 by also treating the writ petition as an additional representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if found necessary and in the event of rejection of the request, and to take a final decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by passing a speaking order containing reasons for the conclusions reached.

The result of the exercise be communicated to the petitioner within the time fixed.

In case the order is adveRs.to the petitioner she would, needless to say, remain at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

Disposed of with the above directions.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 09.10.2013 JUDGE manju Mittal Manju 2013.10.11 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh