1: FACTS:-
Mrs Deepika Singh was a nursing officer at PGIMER Chandigarh. During this time, she married Mr Amir Singh, who had two children from his previous marriage, a boy born on the date first of February 2001 and a girl who was born on the date third of March 2005. Mr Amir Singh ex-wife had passed away in the past year 2013. Mrs Deepika Singh had requested her authorities to mention these kids as hers’ and she would take care of them as a stepmother.
Various times she used to take CCL or child care leave for these children to give them support. In the year 2019, Mrs Deepika had given birth to her own biological child. She requested PGIMER for a maternity leave to take care of her child, but they rejected her plea by saying that under the CCS Rules 43(1).[1]
They already gave her leave for the two children and they can’t give her maternity leave for the third child because she already did it and even the CAT issued that any female employee would only be given leave for two surviving children only and as of date, her first child is the boy named Viren not the newborn.
After this decision of CAT, she went to Punjab and Haryana court, who themselves affirm the ruling/decision of CAT and later on she appealed in the Supreme Court regarding this matter.[2],[3]
2:ISSUES RAISED:-
1: Does the CCS Rules 43(1) 1972,[1] really apply on the step children or only it is limited to this biological children?
2: If a woman takes a child leave for a non-biological child would disqualify her claiming maternity leave for her own first biological child?
3: Should the should the law be implemented narrowly, or should it be changed because the changing society and family structure to give citizens, proper equality and dignity?
3: CONTENTION:-
Petitioners arguments, (Deepika Singh):-
1: Both the terms, child care leave and maternity leave, have a proper different legal as well as constitutional meaning to it. Child Care Leave means or it says that it is taken to provide the child proper caregiving needs for his or her mental, emotional and physical well-being, whereas maternity leave says that it is taken by a woman to give her proper time to recover from postnatal experience and take proper care of both the mother as well as the newborn baby, so cancelling out her maternity leave for the first biological child is truly irrational cause she took the CCL earlier.
2:She claims that this denial by the PGIMER Chandigarh violates her rights under the Article 14, which is right to equality[4] and Article 21, right to life and personal liberty[5] in the Constitution of India.
3:She also highlighted the fact that this discrimination with people who are stepmother, adopted, mothers, or families like the LGBTQ+ families.
Respondents arguments, (PGIMER, CAT):-
1: The Rule 43(1)[1], truly allows the mother or a woman to take maternity leave, but it is only applicable if the applicant has less than two surviving children
2:Since Mrs Deepika had already availed this CCL for her surviving children, she has already used this benefit and has exhausted the entitlement which is stated in the rule
3: This rule is extremely or truly strictly applied with proper administrative standards and policy consideration, which is the population control norm
4: RATIONALE:-
The Supreme Court bench which was led by Mr DY Chandrachud ruled this in the favour of Miss Deepika Singh, that court had taken a nice purpose and a welfare oriented approach, which mainly emphasised on three main things:-
1: Maternity leave and childcare leave or totally and conceptually as well as legally distinctive. Maternity leave is taken in the biological and physical needs of a child birth or at the time of the child birth, whereas the child care live is linked to taking proper care and fulfilling the needs of the child.
2: What is the definition of family?
The court said that this word family must not be limited to what the traditional meanings or the norms have said it to as we are progressing show the society has changed a lot and now family includes adoptive parents, step parents, single parents, parents, and other non-traditional set ups as well. That’s why we need to change. What truly means a family in the law.
3: Denying maternity leave or benefits for a woman’s first child birth, just because she used it earlier to care for her stepchildren is truly unjust and absurd
DY Chandrachud also quoted that
“Family may take the form of a domestic unmarried partnership or a relationship. The perception of what constitutes a family unit cannot be frozen in time”[2],[3]
The court clearly directed that Miss Deepika Singh should be granted her maternity leave with all the benefits she deserve.
5: DEFECTS OF LAW:-
1:Ambiguity in statutory language:
Rule 43 (1)[1] does not clearly and particularly distinguish between a biological and non-biological child. In the context of leave entitlement, leading to interpretative confusion.
2:Exclusionary design:
the CCS rules reflect a limited understanding of what family tree means and ignoring various aspects.
3: Lack of policy synchronisation, while constitutional jurisprudence supports a broad view of family and administrative works still lacks behind it, relying on a rigid and a traditional definition, which is truly not beneficial for a society
4:No clear, appeals process: employees like Deepika Singh have to go through a long and legal route just to challenge the administrative decision which is truly discouraging the rightful claims of a person
6:INFERENCE:-
This case truly mark a progressive turning point in our Indian social welfare law, not only the court recognise that families are not just one size. They ruled out that as a society is progressing. It is truly important for us to expand this term and write proper new definitions for the same. The Supreme Court even reaffirmed that the principal which entitled under the welfare legislation should be reflected in reality of modern Indian household. It shouldn’t be just a rule and it should be properly followed.
Also, the judgement not only told us what family is, but they also strengthen what women’s reproductive rights are and even strengthen the employment protection by reinforcing the maternity benefits as many private organisation or even the government organisation exploit their employees by not giving them proper leaves for their care need proper health, maintenance, et cetera, which is truly discouraging to see in our India as we know that our population is truly high where people now works in these organisation and organisation also have various goals to achieve, these goals truly above the human value or the life present. It will likely guide what the future legal interpretation around adoption, step parenting, queer relationships and gender inclusive policies as well. Although various things happened in this case, but still there are some legislative update which have not been done in the C leave rules, which still needs A lot o highlight and a lot of vision to do
In the end, I would truly say like as we know that India has been progressing a lot. In nowadays we know that various people they cannot have children because of various biological reasons. So nowadays parents tend to adopt children, but sometimes it can happen that a biological child being born in these type of family show the organisation must not just rule out that they are not following the population norms. As we know that it wasn’t a mistake of a child to be born like this, also we should keep in mind that the employees working in these organisations. They are just not just labours for these organisation. They are human beings. We should value these that’s why proper wages, proper incentives. Proper leaves should be given to them which is not being given in a recent survey, it was shown that various people or discouraged and they don’t want to work in these organisations. It was truly interesting to see that the people who had shifted from rural areas to city to get a proper job. They are now being removed or thrown out of their jobs or being exploited so they have once again shifted back to these rural areas and work on a daily basis like a poor farmers, so I think so that Supreme Court should keep in mind that yes, India’s population is growing, but we still need to look out for a lot of things and also ensure that the people that the employees that various children women they need to still be protected from various evils, which is still not being happening in our country, but it should be as it is duty to fulfil these knees. Also, also as we know that people don’t know what does proper leave means like in this particular case as well, they weren’t truly knowing what does maternity leave means or what does child gay leave means they thought that these two things means the same, which is truly not possible as it is also defined by the Supreme Court as well that these two have a proper different meaning, so it should be clear in our law that what a thing particularly means whatever a word which is written in a law or a rules or the norms made what it truly means so that there is zero chaos in the society, and the people can work happily and not discouraged.
7:CITATIONS:-
[1]Cent. Civil Servs. (Leave) Rules, 1972, Rule 43
[2]Deepika Singh v. Cent. Admin. Trib., (Supreme Court of India, Aug. 16, 2022), IndianKanoon legal database.
[3]Rostrum Legal, Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (Aug. 16, 2022) [YouTube video], YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzguXKe72QA
[4]CONST. INDIA art. 14
[5]CONST. INDIA art. 21