MANU/DE/4823/2024

True Court CopyTM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P. (C) 9270/2024 and CM Appl. 38033/2024

Decided On: 22.07.2024

Appellants: Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Ravina Yadav and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Suresh Kait and Girish Kathpalia

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J.

Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny-Ernst Haeckel

1. By way of this writ petition brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed order dated 30.10.2023 of the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, passed in O.A. No. 1716/2019 filed by respondent no.1.

1.1. On the basis of advance notice, respondent no.2 Union of India entered appearance through counsel and accepted notice. At request of both sides, we heard final arguments at the initial stage itself, without issuing notice to respondent no.1.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. The respondent no.1 is employed with the petitioners (police authorities) as a Lady Constable since 03.07.2006. Prior to her joining service with the petitioners, she got married with one Satya Pal on 07.04.1998 and was blessed with two children. Unfortunately, marriage of respondent no.1 with Satya Pal could not succeed and was got dissolved by way of decree dated 16.12.2015 of divorce with mutual consent, whereby custody of children born from their wedlock was handed over to Satya Pal. After her divorce, respondent no.1 got married with Deepak on 11.12.2016 and from this second wedlock, respondent no.1 was blessed with a child on 08.06.2018, so she submitted an application before the petitioners, thereby seeking maternity leave with effect from 08.06.2018. The said maternity leave application of respondent no.1 was forwarded by the petitioners vide communication dated 31.08.2018 to the Government of NCT of Delhi, seeking opinion. On being consulted by the petitioners, the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) rendered their opinion dated 12.03.2019 that according to Rule 43 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, entitlement of a female government servant to maternity leave for a period of 180 days is if she has less than two surviving children. Relying upon the said opinion, petitioners rejected the maternity leave application of respondent no.1 vide order dated 05.04.2019 and informed her accordingly. Feeling aggrieved with the decision, respondent no.1 preferred an Original Application, registered as O.A No. 1716/2019 before the learned Tribunal, whereby she sought quashing of order dated 05.04.2019 along with directions to the petitioners to grant her maternity leave. After hearing both sides, by way of the impugned order dated 30.10.2023, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application, thereby setting aside order dated 05.04.2019 of petitioners and directing them to grant maternity leave to the respondent. Hence, the present petition.

3. During arguments, learned counsel for petitioners took us through the above records and contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. She strongly contended that since respondent no.1 has two surviving children, in view of Rule 43 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 she is not entitled to maternity leave now, it being her third child. However, the learned Tribunal fell in error by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Ruksana vs State of Haryana, W.P.(C) No. 4229/2011 as the same pertained to Rule 8.127 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.

3.1. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 also supported the petition and contended that vide Rule 43 of CCS (Leave) Rules 1972, respondent no.1 is not entitled to maternity leave, it being a case of her third chi........