Kerala High Court reinstates woman fired by State Women and Child Development Dept for proceeding on maternity leave

The Kerala High Court recently made some crucial observations on the challenges of balancing motherhood and professional career while rebuking the State Women and Child Development Department for terminating the services of a woman for the reason that she had gone on maternity leave without authorisation (Vandana Sreemedha J v. State of Kerala)..Single-judge Justice Devan Ramachandran ordered that the petitioner be reinstated to her job and rebuked the employer for firing her. "Without requirement for any elaboration, this attitude is not one which this Court can countenance in this century, when women essay several roles, take on variegated responsibilities and require to be adept multitaskers, to survive and find wings to achieve their legitimate ambitions. It is certainly my hope that the endeavours of such industrious women ought to obtain unstinted support and encouragement, but the orders impugned in this writ petition can only serve to undermine the confidence and morale of persons like the petitioner, who bravely face the challenges of life every day, with the steely resolve to balance their personal and official life to the best of their capacity".The petition was filed through Advocate B Mohanlal by a woman who worked on contract basis as a counsellor in the Office of the District Child Protection Officer, Kollam. Her contract had been renewed for several years but after she gave birth to a child, she was constrained to avail maternity leave from November 2020.Her request for maternity leave was turned down by the Director, Women and Child Development Department and she was later terminated from service, accusing her of having been on unauthorised absence.This prompted her to approach the Court.It was submitted that she was initially selected for an one-year spell, after a process of selection, and appointed on contract from December 16, 2016 till August 21. 2017.It was subsequently extended for one year at a time, till August 21, 2020. She contended that, thereafter, consequent to a fresh process of selection, she was further appointed with effect from August 23, 2020 till January 17, 2021, albeit, on daily wage basis.It was during this period that she gave birth to a child forcing her to avail maternity leave. .Government Pleader Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, appearing for the respondents, submitted that petitioner was not entitled to have sought maternity leave one day after she joined service on contract and he relied on Note 4 to Rule 100 of Part I of the Kerala Services Rules (KSR) in support.He relied upon the judgement of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Jisha P Jayan v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady in which it was held that only a contract employee who has been in service for at least one year or more is entitled to maternity leave and thus contended that the authorities were justified in having issued the order terminating her service..The Court adverted to Note 4 to Rule 100 of Part I of the Kerala Services Rules, a woman employee, who is on provisional service, would be entitled to maternity leave, provided she was continuing beyond one year and would have continued in service, but for proceeding on such leave. The Court observed that petitioner was serving as a counsellor on contract for several years, though with a break one or two days which happened whenever her contract was extended.Even if it is taken that she was not entitled to avail leave when engaged on daily wages, the Court stated that it failed to understand how the authorities, without any effective evaluation, concluded that she would not obtain the benefit of the relevant provisions of KSR, solely because she was working on a contract..The Court also noted that the Director of the Women and Child Development Department seemed to have threatened action against the District Child Protection Officer for having selected and appointed the petitioner "without proper care", thus insinuating that he ought not to have offered employment to her solely because she had recently given birth to a child. .The Court, therefore, ordered that the petitioner be immediately reinstated to her position as a counsellor and that her application for leave be reconsidered as well..Pertinently, Justice Ramachandran also observed that, "Life as a new mother is like being on a roller-coaster and being a working mother is tougher. The minutiae of motherhood can never be properly contemplated and it involves navigation through myriad daily issues, which ultimately determine the health and future of the child. The mother's constant proximity to the child is scientifically proven to be absolutely un-expendable and this, primarily and inter alia, is why the provisions for maternity leave are now internationally accepted".[Read Judgment]