Deepika Singh v. Union of India, (2022) revolves around the decision of the Supreme Court of India, which dealt with the interpretation of maternity laws in India.
| Case Title : | Deepika Singh v Central Administrative Tribunal |
| Court : | Supreme Court of India |
| Citation : | Civil Appeal No. 5308 of 2022 |
| Appellants Name : | Deepika Singh |
| Respondent Name : | Central Administrative Tribunal and others |
| Judges : | Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud |
| Date of Judgement : | 16 August 2022 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
- Deepika Singh (hereafter the Appellant) had been working as Nursery Officer in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (hereafter the PGIMER) at Chandigarh since 25 November, 2005.
- The Appellant had married Amar Singh on 18 February, 2014. Amar Singh had been married before his marriage to the Appellant and his spouse had died on 11 February, 2013. From this previous marriage, he had two children: a male child born on 1 February, 2001 and a female child born on 3 March, 2005.
- After her marriage to Amar Singh, the Appellant had requested PGIMER on 4 May 2015 to enter the names of two children from her spouse’s earlier marriage in the official service record.
- The Appellant had her first biological child on 4 June, 2019 from her marriage.
- The Appellant applied for maternity leave on 6 June, 2019 for the period of 27 June, 2019 to 23 December, 2019 under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972 (hereafter the Rules of 1972).
- PGIMER had sought clarification on 3 July, 2019 for the fact that the Appellant’s spouse had two surviving children from his first marriage. A detailed reply was sent by the Appellant on 24 July, 2019.
- The Appellant’s application for maternity leave was rejected on 3 September, 2019 on the grounds that she had two surviving children and had availed of Child Care Leave earlier for them. Hence, it was said decided by the PGIMER that according to the Rules of 1972, her biological child would be treated as her third child and that her maternity leave would be inadmissible.
- And an Office Order dated 21 January, 2020 categorized her earlier leaves not as Maternity Leave but as the following:
- 30 May 2019 to 3 June 2019 – Earned Leave
- 4 June 2019 to 27 October 2019 – Medical Leave
- 27 October 2019 to 6 November 2019 – Half Pay Leave
- 7 November 2019 to 31 November 2019 – Extraordinary Leave
- The Appellant aggrieved by the decisions of 3 September, 2019 and 21 January, 2020, moved the Central Administrative Tribunal at its Chandigarh Bench.
- Consequently, the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 29 January, 2021 on the grounds that a Maternity Leave can only be granted to a female government servant if she has less than two surviving children. Since the Appellant had already availed benefits in the respect of her two children by the way of Child Care Leave among other benefits, her own child would be treated as her third child, thereby leading to the appeal’s rejection.
- Thereafter, the Appellant moved High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal on 16 March, 2021 stating the same reasons the PGIMER and the Central Administrative Tribunal. The High Court concluded that there was no flaw in the Judgement pronounced by the Central Administrative Tribunal and that the Appellant did not meet the requirement as set out in the sub rule (1) of the Rule 43 in the Rules of 1976.
- Finally, the Appellant moved Supreme Court.
PERTINENT LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Rule 43-(C) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972 the Child Care Leave (the Rules of 1972) states the provision of Child Care Leave.
- The Rule states that a women Government servant having minor children below the age of eighteen years and who has no earned leave at her credit, may be granted Child Care Leave for a maximum period of two years, that is, 730 days during the entire service for taking care of up to two children.
- During this leave, the women Government servant will be paid leave salary equivalent to the salary she was drawing immediately before proceeding on the leave.
- Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972 the Child Care Leave (the Rules of 1972). The Rules of 1972 have been framed under the proviso of Article 302 of the Constitution. Rule 43 states the following regarding Maternity Leave:
- Rule 43 sub-rule 1 states that a female Government servant (including an apprentice) with less than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave for a period of 180 days from the date of its commencement.
- Rule 43 sub-rule 2 states that during such leave, she will be paid salary equivalent to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on the leave.
- Maternity Benefit Act 1961, although had no direct application, was used to indicate the object and intent of Parliament in enacting a legislation connected to the subject of Maternity Leave.
- Section 5 (1) of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 states that every woman shall be entitled to and her employer shall be liable for the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wage for the period of her actual absence, that is, the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day.
- Section 5 (3) of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 states that maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be twenty-six weeks of which not more than eight weeks shall precede the date of her expected delivery provided that the maximum period entitled to maternity benefit by a woman having two or more than two surviving children shall be twelve weeks of which not more than six weeks shall precede the date of her expected delivery.
- A woman that adopts a child below three months of age or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother, as may be the case.
ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE
- The main issue around which the case revolved was the interpretation of Rule 43 of the Rules of 1972, that is, whether the concerned Rule 43 was to be interpreted purely on linguistic and literal basis or was a more liberal approach required to ensure not only the letter but the spirit of law was followed. Which approach would be more conducive to achieve social justice?
- Additionally, the issue of whether the traditional understanding of the concept of a “family” was insufficient to encompass the complexities of the modern familial relationships was raised.
CONTENTION
- Arguments of the appellant
- The fact that the Appellant has two surviving children from her spouse’s previous marriage does not disentitle her under the Rules of 1972.
- Maternity Leave sought by the Appellant for the birth of her first biological child and the Child Care Leave availed by the Appellant for her step children were distinct and the Maternity Leave sought for the Appellant’s first biological child should have been granted.
- Arguments of the respondents
- The Respondents contended that since the Appellant availed benefit of Child Care Leave for her two step children, she was no longer entitled to a Maternity Leave for her biological child since to avail it under the Rules of 1972 required the female government servant to have less than two surviving children and the Appellant’s first biological child was her third child.
RATIONALE
- Various judgements and other pertinent material were cited to highlight the need to not interpret the provisions of a beneficial legislation or a social welfare legislation or a human rights legislation like Rule 43 of the Rules of 1972 in a literal manner and the importance of construing such legislations in a more liberal manner that is more concerned with the ‘colour’, ‘content’ and ‘context’ of such legislations.
- The case of Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse was cited that demonstrate the need for Courts to bridge the gap between law and society through the use of purposive interpretation in order to achieve social justice.
- Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 was cited to highlight that such legislations have been passed by the Parliament to ensure that the absence of a woman from the place of work occasioned by the delivery of her child does not hinder her entitlement to receive wages for that period so as to afford the woman as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life both as a worker and as a mother.
- The case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) was cited. The said case had placed reliance on the obligations under Articles 14, 15, 39, 42 and 43 of the Constitution and India’s international obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (hereafter UDHR) and Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (hereafter CEDAW) to extend benefits under the Act of 1961 to workers engaged on a casual basis or on muster roll on a daily wage basis.
- Article 15(3) of the Constitution was cited which states that the State is empowered to enact beneficial provisions for advancing the interests of women
- Article 21 of the Constitution was cited under which the right to reproduction and child rearing has been recognized as an important facet of a person’s right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity.
- Article 42 was cited which states that the State can make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.
- Article 25(2) of the UDHR was cited that provides that motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.
- Article 11(2)(b) of CEDAW was cited that requires States to introduce maternity leave with pay or comparable social benefits and requires the States to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work.
INFERENCE
- It was decided that with regard to the articles in the Constitution as well as the treaties cited by the Court, a woman’s right to avail maternity leave for a period 180 days was independent of her right to avail Child Care Leave for taking care of her two eldest surviving children whether for rearing or any other needs. Both were distinct.
- Child Care Leave can be availed not only at the point of time that the child is born but also at any subsequent period.
- The fact that 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 appeal was allowed and the benefits admissible to the Appellant were ordered to be released to her within a period of two months from the date of this order.
LIST OF REFERENCES
- Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Civil Appeal No. 5308 of 2022
SHREE GUPTA
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PUNJAB