Karnataka High Court Ruling on Maternity Leave for Contractual Staff
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a notice issued by the Directorate of Municipal Administration, which terminated the services of a woman employed on a contract basis after rejecting her application for maternity leave. The Court held that even contractual staff are entitled to maternity leave. "The petitioner was entitled to maternity leave of six months in all in terms of the amended Act of 2017 (supra). The action of the second respondent cannot be countenanced, as maternity or the Act does not classify or qualify a mother to be a government servant, a temporary employee, an employee on a contract basis, or an employee on daily wages. The order impugned infers such a harrowing classification," the Court observed.
Moreover, the Honorable Court ruled that it is a fit case where, apart from granting back wages to the petitioner, in the peculiar facts, the second respondent will have to be mulcted with exemplary costs. Justice Nagaprasanna imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the state government, which has to be paid to the woman. Furthermore, she has to be reinstated within two weeks to the post she held earlier with 50% back wages from the date of the cancellation of the appointment until the date of reinstatement.
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a notice issued by the Directorate of Municipal Administration, which terminated the services of a woman employed on a contract basis after rejecting her application for maternity leave. The Court held that even contractual staff are entitled to maternity leave. "The petitioner was entitled to maternity leave of six months in all in terms of the amended Act of 2017 (supra). The action of the second respondent cannot be countenanced, as maternity or the Act does not classify or qualify a mother to be a government servant, a temporary employee, an employee on a contract basis, or an employee on daily wages. The order impugned infers such a harrowing classification," the Court observed.
Moreover, the Honorable Court ruled that it is a fit case where, apart from granting back wages to the petitioner, in the peculiar facts, the second respondent will have to be mulcted with exemplary costs. Justice Nagaprasanna imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the state government, which has to be paid to the woman. Furthermore, she has to be reinstated within two weeks to the post she held earlier with 50% back wages from the date of the cancellation of the appointment until the date of reinstatement.