Revenue Authority Cannot Vest Land In State Under Section 79A, Suo Motu Proceedings After 11 Years Fatal: Gujarat High Court Campaigning During 48-Hour Silent Period Is Not 'Undue Influence' Under Section 123(2), Election Petition Must Plead How Result Was Materially Affected: Bombay High Court DVDs Carrying Encoded Data Infringe Patent Even If Stampers Are Outsourced: Delhi High Court in Philips’ DVD-ROM Patent Dispute Departmental Exoneration Does Not Bar Criminal Trial If Key Evidence Not Considered: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash PSI’s Corruption Case Can't Claim Irrevocable License Under Section 60 Easements Act Without Pleading It First: Punjab & Haryana High Court Ex Parte Decree Obtained Behind Back of True Owner Confers No Title; Appellate Stage Cannot Be Used to Rescue a Fundamentally Flawed Claim: Supreme Court Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | Appeal Cannot Be Decided Without First Adjudicating Additional Evidence Application: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Only Allegation Quarrelling Is Not a Criminal Offence, Cannot Sustain Cognizance: Supreme Court Quash Proceedings Eye-Witness Survives 82 Pages of Cross-Examination: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Payment of Tax Receipts Is Not A Conclusive Proof of Possession of Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court Spa Owner Who Personally Received Marked Currency And Promised 'Nice Females With Closed Door Rooms' Cannot Escape Trafficking Charges: Bombay High Court No Person Can Transfer A Better Title Than What He Possesses In Property So Transferred: Andhra Pradesh High Court Unsubstantiated Allegations of Illicit Affair and Attempt to Kill Child in Written Statement Amount to Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce Child Dies Inside Anganwadi Centre After Repeated Complaints About Exposed Wires Went Unaddressed: Chhattisgarh High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance, Directs Statewide Safety Audit 'High Speed' Without Mentioning Approximate Speed Not Sufficient To Prove Rash And Negligent Driving Under Section 279 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court 'Reverse Passing Off' Is Not an Actionable Tort in Indian Trade Mark Law: Delhi High Court: SARFAESI E-Auction Purchaser Cannot Be Prosecuted For Undervaluation When DRT Has Affirmed Valuation: Jharkhand High Court Republishing Defamatory Facebook Post On Website Constitutes Fresh Offence of Defamation; Prior Publication In Public Domain No Defence: Kerala High Court One Year Custody Not Prolonged In Cases Involving Attack On Police Post With Explosive Substance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail Bribe Demand Can Be Proved Through Electronic Evidence Even If Complainant Turns Hostile: Rajasthan High Court Sand Theft Under BNS And Kerala Sand Act Can Be Prosecuted Simultaneously; Earlier Contrary View Per Incuriam: Kerala High Court Judge Overrules Own Judgment Sale Agreement Executed As Security For Loan Is A Sham Document Not Enforceable By Specific Performance: Supreme Court

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