Right to maternity leave can't be taken away for having availed child care leave earlier for non-biological kids: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a woman's statutory right to avail maternity leave cannot be taken away for the reason that she had availed child care leave earlier for her non-biological kids [Deepika Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal and ors]..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna ruled that the provisions of the Central Civil Services Rules (CCS Rules) regarding maternal leave have to be purposively interpreted in line with the object and intent of the Maternity Benefit Act enacted by Parliament."The fact that the appellant's spouse had two biological children from his first marriage would not impinge upon the entitlement of the appellant to avail maternity leave for her sole biological child ... The grant of child care leave to the appellant cannot be used to disentitle her to maternity leave under Rule 43 of the [Central Civil Servcies] Rules of 1972 ... Unless a purposive interpretation were to be adopted in the present case, the object and intent of the grant of maternity leave would simply be defeated" the Bench noted. The Bench was hearing a matter where a government employee, working as a nurse at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER), was denied maternity leave for her biological child for already having availed such leave for two of her other kids. The two children were her husband's kids from his previous marriage. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Punjab & Haryana High Court had dismissed her plea for allowance as per maternity leave benefits in the Central Civil Service Rules of 2013.This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. .The counsel for the respondents had submitted that the purpose of restricting maternity leave to the two eldest surviving children was to encourage smaller families. Justice Chandrachud, however, said that her plight of having kids from her husband's previous marriage was not voluntary."She got married into such a family. So your argument won't apply."The Bench made it clear that grant of maternity leave is intended to encourage women to join and continue in the workplace. "It is a harsh reality that but for such provisions, many women would be compelled by social circumstances to give up work on the birth of a child, if they are not granted leave and other facilitative measures. No employer can perceive child birth as detracting from the purpose of employment. Child birth has to be construed in the context of employment as a natural incident of life and hence, the provisions for maternity leave must be construed in that perspective" the Court said.It, therefore, held that the appellant is entitled to the grant of maternity leave, and set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal. "The OA filed by the appellant shall in consequence stand allowed and the appellant shall be granted maternity leave under Rule 43 in terms of the present judgment. The benefits which are admissible to the appellant shall be released to her within a period of two months from the date of this order.".Advocate Akshay Verma appeared for the appellant, and advocate Sudarshan Rajan represented the respondents with the exception of the Tribunal.[Read judgment].[Follow our coverage of the hearing and the order]