Delhi HC: Maternity rights integral, orders reinstatement of illegally terminated DU employee

Delhi HC: Maternity rights integral, orders reinstatement of illegally terminated DU employee

The Delhi High Court has issued a directive to the University of Delhi to reinstate one of its employees, who was working as a female attendant at Geetanjali Hostel in South Campus, and provide her with all the benefits. This decision was made because her termination while she was on maternity leave, without prior notice, was deemed illegal. The Court has also instructed the university to comply with the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 and grant her maternity benefits. Additionally, the petitioner is to receive compensation of Rs. 50,000 based on the "no work, no pay" principle.

In the current legal petition, the petitioner was distressed by the abrupt termination of her employment and the failure to receive her salary during her maternity leave.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh's bench made the following observation: "In numerous previous judgments, this Court has consistently emphasized that maternity benefits should not be withheld from female employees simply because their employment is of a contractual nature. Refusing these benefits is not only inhumane but also a violation of Fundamental Rights. Maternity rights are not merely statutory; they are an intrinsic aspect of a woman's identity. Denying these rights effectively obstructs a woman's choice to bring life into the world, thereby infringing upon her fundamental right to life. Such denial is contrary to the principles of social justice."

In the current case, the petitioner was assigned the role of a female attendant at Geetanjali Hostel, South Campus, Delhi University, which is the respondent institution. She was initially appointed on a temporary basis for a period of six months, starting from July 4, 2018. Subsequently, she applied for maternity leave, which was to be effective from May 5, 2022, to November 4, 2022. This request was communicated to the respondent institution on April 19, 2022, and it was later approved.

It was further specified that the petitioner's contractual term was extended for an additional period of six months, starting from July 2, 2022, and lasting until December 31, 2022. However, the petitioner has claimed that she did not receive her salary during her maternity leave, which was from July 2022 to November 2022.

Following her return to work at the respondent institution after her maternity leave, the petitioner was informed that her employment had been terminated, and a permanent replacement had been appointed in her place. The petitioner argued that she was entitled to 26 weeks of paid maternity leave, but this entitlement was not honored by the respondents. Furthermore, she claimed that the respondent institution terminated her employment without providing a clear and justifiable reason or issuing a show cause notice.

The arguments presented in this case included two key points. First, it was asserted that according to Section 11 of the University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, a temporary employee is entitled to receive a one-month notice prior to their termination. Second, it was emphasized that Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 contains a specific provision that prohibits the dismissal of a female employee during her absence or pregnancy-related leave. Therefore, it was argued that the actions taken by the respondent institution in terminating the petitioner's employment were unlawful and arbitrary.

In light of the facts and circumstances, the bench made the following note: "The current petition is accepted, and the respondents are instructed to reappoint the petitioner to her former position or any other position for which she is eligible. They are also required to provide the maternity benefits in accordance with the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 within a period of four weeks from today. Furthermore, in line with the 'no work, no pay' principle, this Court finds it appropriate to grant compensation to the petitioner due to her unjust termination. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the petitioner."

Case: Neelam Kumari v. The University Of Delhi & Ors, W.P.(C) 2959/2023

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy