Women contractual employees entitled to 45 days' leave after hysterectomy: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that women government employees hired on contractual basis are also entitled to the same leave benefits guaranteed to regular government employees after they undergo a hysterectomy [Nisha Jose v. State of Kerala & Ors.].

Justice Harisankar V Menon passed the ruling. The Court noted that the benefits of both maternity and miscarriage leave under the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) had already been extended to contractual employees via Government Orders.

Therefore, the Court reasoned that there was no ground to not extend the benefit of 45 days of hysterectomy leave to contractual employees, as already given to regular government employees under Rule 101 of the KSR.

The judgment was passed on two petitions filed by women Special Educators (Secondary) who were engaged on a contract basis with Samagra Shiksha Kerala (a school education programme implemented by the Kerala government under the Centre's Samagra Shiksha scheme).

They had sought medical leave following hysterectomy surgeries.

They applied for leave with supporting medical documents but the government rejected their applications on the ground that the government order extending leave benefits to contractual employees covered only maternity and miscarriage under Rules 100 and 101 of KSR, not hysterectomy under Rule 101A of KSR.

The Court, however, opined that the government's differenciation between maternity related leave and hysterectomy leave lacked concrete rationale.

It also referred to previous judgments of the Court which recognised maternity leave as a welfare measure to ensure equal opportunities for women in public employment and that contractual status alone could not justify exclusion.

The Court held that since the government had already extended the benefits to maternity and miscarriage benefits to contractual employees, there was no reason to withhold hysterectomy leave from contractual employees.

"In my opinion, when the afore benefits are being extended as regards the claim under Rules 100 and 101 to those female officers appointed on contract basis, there is no reason for not extending the very same benefits as regards the claim under Rule 101A," the Court said in its judgment.

It went on to direct the State government to reconsider the petitioners' applications for leave in light of this judgment.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Dhanya P Ashokan and advocates MR Venugopal, and S Muhammad Alikhan.

The State government was represented by Government Pleader Balaprasannan.

[Read Judgment]