Question Of Child's Right To Maternal Care: Delhi HC Calls For Review Of Rule Denying Maternity Leaves Beyond Two Children

The case stemmed from a plea challenging a decision by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing police authorities to grant maternity leave to a lady constable who had been denied leave due to having a third child. The constable had two children from a previous marriage and a third child from her current marriage, prompting the tribunal's intervention in her favor.

A Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia said, “For population explosion, the government servants are not the only class to be held responsible. Nothing has been placed before us to show the steps taken by the government addressed to the citizens other than government servants for population control. To reiterate, it is not the question of incentivising the lady government servant with the third and the subsequent maternity leave; it is the question of protecting rights of the third and the subsequent child to mother’s touch immediately post natal and during infancy period, which is most crucial for their overall development – physical as well as psychological.”

Standing Counsel (GNCTD) Avnish Ahlawat appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy appeared for the Respondents.

The Court stressed that denying maternity leave to female government servants with a third or subsequent child does not serve to incentivize birth control among parents but instead unfairly penalizes the children born under such circumstances. “What is the fault of the third and subsequent child? They did not have any control over their birth. That being so, it would be atrocious to expect the third and the subsequent child to be deprived of motherly touch immediately post natal and during infancy because Rule 43 expects the mother of that child to report for official duties the very next day of delivery. That third and subsequent child being completely helpless, therefore, it is the duty of the court to step in”, the Court added.

The Court underscored the importance of maternal care for infants, noting that denying maternity leave to mothers of third or subsequent children contradicts their fundamental right to provide essential care during the crucial post-natal and infancy periods. The justices expressed concern for the welfare of these children, who have no control over their birth circumstances.

The High Court referenced the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, highlighting that its provisions do not distinguish between regular and contractual female employees. The Court emphasized that international agreements signed by India and the overarching principles of the Maternity Benefit Act should guide the interpretation and application of Rule 43.

They criticized workplaces that fail to accommodate the maternal responsibilities of women, asserting that gender equity must prevail in all employment environments. The Court said, “The purpose of the maternity leave is to ensure that a working lady may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, peaceably and undeterred by the fear of being victimized for forced absence from work during pre and post natal period. Women, even otherwise constituting sizeable part of workforce in our society, must be treated with honour and dignity at places where they work to earn livelihood. Whatever be the nature of their job and the workplace, they must be provided all facilities to which they are entitled.”

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal brought by the Delhi Police against the CAT's decision, affirming the constable's entitlement to maternity leave for her third child. The Court added, “we find no reason to interfere with the humane and progressive view taken by the learned Tribunal, so the impugned order is upheld and the petition as well as the accompanying applications are dismissed, expecting that the government authorities would re-examine the sustainability of Rule 43 of the CCS(Leave) Rules.”

Cause Title: Commissioner of Police & Anr. v. Ravina Yadav & Anr., [2024:DHC:5372-DB]

Appearance:

Petitioners: Standing Counsel (GNCTD) Avnish Ahlawat and advocates NK Singh, Laavanya Kaushik, Aliza Alam, and Mohnish Sehrawat

Respondents: Advocates Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy and Usha Jamnal