Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra

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