Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father Assets of Wife and Father-in-Law Can Be Considered in Disproportionate Assets Case Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court Refuses Discharge Identification Without TIP, Electronic Records Without 65B Certificate – Conviction Set Aside: Patna High Court Nothing Inflicts A Deeper Wound On Our Constitutional Culture Than A State Official Running Berserk Regardless Of Human Rights: Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.5 Lakh Interim Compensation Dishonour Due to ‘Account Blocked’ Not Attributable to Drawer—No Offence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Cannot Be Rebutted By Mere Assertions: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction In 32-Year-Old Cheque Bounce Case Signature Alone Doesn’t Prove Debt: Kerala High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case, Rejects Blanket Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Justice Cannot Be Left to Guesswork: Supreme Court Mandates Structured Judgments in Criminal Trials Across India Truth Must Be Proven Beyond Doubt—Not Built On Flawed FIRs, Tainted Witnesses And Investigative Gaps: Supreme Court Acquits Man in POCSO Rape-Murder Case Once parties agree and reconciliation is impossible, a fault-based decree is unnecessary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Divorce on Desertion No Escape from Statutory Ceiling: Exclusive Expenditure by Foreign Head Offices Also Attracts Section 44C Income Tax: Supreme Court Loss Of A Child Cannot Be Calculated In Rupees, But Law Must At Least Offer Dignity In Compensation: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation Sessions Court Cannot Direct Life Imprisonment Till Natural Life Without Remission: Supreme Court Reasserts Limits on Sentencing Powers of Subordinate Courts ‘Continuously Means Without a Single Break’: Supreme Court Bars Expired-and-Renewed Licences From Police Driver Recruitment Chief Justice’s Power Under Section 51(3) Is Independent and Continuing: Supreme Court Upholds Kolhapur Bench Notification Last Seen Evidence Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case No Cultivation on Forest Land Without Central Clearance: Supreme Court Cancels Lease Over 134 Acres, Orders Reforestation Appointment from Rank List Must Respect Communal Rotation: SC Declines Claim of SC Waitlisted Candidate After Resignation of Appointee Supreme Court Dissolves 20-Year Estranged Marriage Under Article 142 Despite Wife’s Objection Murder Inside Temple Cannot Be Treated Lightly: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Father-Son Convicts in Group Killing Case

Maternity Leave Is a Right, Not a Privilege: Rajasthan High Court Orders RSRTC to Provide 180 Days

02 December 2024 6:45 PM

By: sayum


Rajasthan High Court directs RSRTC to amend its 1965 regulations and align them with the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) to grant 180 days of maternity leave to its female employees, bringing its policies in line with the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. The court criticized RSRTC’s reliance on its outdated 1965 regulations, which only provided for 90 days of leave. The judgment highlights the necessity of modernizing workplace policies to reflect the evolving legal framework and uphold the constitutional rights of women.

The petitioner, Minakshi Chaudhary, an employee of RSRTC, applied for 180 days of maternity leave after the birth of her child. However, RSRTC sanctioned only 90 days of leave, citing Regulation 74 of its 1965 service rules. The petitioner argued that this was discriminatory and not in line with the central government's amendment in 2017, which increased maternity leave to 180 days. She approached the court seeking parity with other government employees.

Motherhood as a Fundamental Right: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, who presided over the case, remarked, "Motherhood is not only a biological process but a journey that reshapes a woman’s identity." The court emphasized that maternity leave is not merely a statutory entitlement but a fundamental right linked to a woman’s dignity, identity, and role in society. The judgment reinforced that the right to maternity leave is rooted in the broader rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which encompass equality and the right to live with dignity.

The court pointed out that RSRTC's reliance on the 1965 regulations, which capped maternity leave at 90 days, was untenable in light of the 2017 amendments to the Maternity Benefit Act. “The respondent RSRTC is trying to take shelter of Regulation 74, but such regulation has become ancient in view of subsequent acts,” the court noted, underscoring the need for RSRTC to amend its rules in line with current legislation.

The judgment stressed the importance of equal treatment for all female employees, irrespective of their workplace. Justice Dhand observed, "Granting only 90 days of maternity leave to RSRTC employees amounts to discrimination," as other government employees are entitled to 180 days of leave. The court further emphasized that limiting maternity leave infringes upon a woman’s constitutional rights and undermines her ability to balance her professional and family responsibilities.

The court invoked several key judgments and constitutional provisions to support its ruling. It highlighted that Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, includes the right to maternity relief. Additionally, Article 42 of the Constitution calls for humane working conditions and maternity benefits, reinforcing the state's obligation to protect the health and well-being of working women and their children.

The court also referred to various Supreme Court judgments, including Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, which recognized maternity benefits as an essential right tied to a woman's dignity and fundamental rights under Article 21.

"The Regulation of 1965 is liable to be amended now, as the same is the need of the hour," Justice Dhand declared, urging RSRTC to bring its policies in line with contemporary standards. He further added, "Women contribute to half of the segment of our society and they have to be honored and treated with dignity at all places, including where they earn their livelihood."

This landmark judgment by the Rajasthan High Court sets a precedent for aligning workplace policies with current legal standards, particularly those concerning women's rights. The court's ruling not only ensures that RSRTC employees receive 180 days of maternity leave but also sends a broader message about the importance of updating outdated regulations to reflect modern legal principles. The decision is expected to prompt similar reforms across various sectors, reaffirming the judiciary's role in upholding social justice and gender equality in the workplace.

Date of Decision: September 5, 2024​.

 

Latest Legal News