DEEPIKA SINGH versus CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 557 · Decided: 16-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
557
DEEPIKA SINGH
v.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5308 of 2022)
AUGUST 16, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A S BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972: r. 43
– Maternity leave – Entitlement to – Female government servant-
nursing officer applied for maternity leave on the birth of her first
biological child when she had already taken the benefit of child
care leave in respect of the two children born to her spouse from his
first marriage – Rejected by the tribunal as also the High Court –
On appeal, held: Independent of the grant of maternity leave, a
woman is also entitled to the grant of child care leave for taking
care of her two eldest surviving children whether for rearing or for
looking after any of their needs, such as education, sickness and
the like – Both maternity leave and child care leave constitute distinct
entitlements – The fact that the nursing officer’s spouse had two
biological children from his first marriage would not impinge upon
her entitlement to avail maternity leave for her sole biological child
– Grant of child care leave to her cannot be used to disentitle her to
maternity leave u/r. 43 – Unless a purposive interpretation were to
be adopted, the object and intent of the grant of maternity leave
would simply be defeated – Grant of maternity leave under the Rules
of 1972 is intended to facilitate the continuance of women in the
workplace – Child birth has to be construed in the context of
employment as a natural incident of life and hence, the provisions
for maternity leave must be construed in that perspective –
Furthermore, the guardians and caretakers-mother and father, of
children may change with remarriage, adoption, or fostering – Such
atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving not
only of protection under law but also of the benefits available under
social welfare legislation – On facts, the structure of the employee’s
family changed when she took on a parental role with respect to
her spouse’s biological children from his previous marriage – When
courts are confronted with such situations, they would do well to
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 557
557
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
attempt to give effect to the purpose of the law in question rather
than to prevent its application – Thus, the nursing officer was entitled
to the grant of maternity leave – Judgment of the High Court and
the tribunal is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Under Article 15(3) of the Constitution, the State
is empowered to enact beneficial provisions for advancing the
interests of women. The right to reproduction and child rearing
has been recognized as an important facet of a person's right to
privacy, dignity and bodily integrity under Article 21. Article 42
enjoins the State to make provisions for securing just and humane
conditions of work and for maternity relief. [Para 21][572-B-C]
1.2 India has ratified to several international conventions
of the United Nations. Article 25(2) of the UDHR provides that
motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and
assistance. Article 11(2)(b) of CEDAW requires states “to
introduce maternity leave with pay or comparable social benefits.”
In alignment with the Constitution as well as the treaties
mentioned, Rule 43(1) of the Rules of 1972 contemplates the
grant of maternity leave for a period of 180 days. Independent of
the grant of maternity leave, a woman is also entitled to the grant
of child care leave for taking care of her two eldest surviving
children whether for rearing or for looking after any of their needs,
such as education, sickness and the like. Child care leave under
Rule 43-C can be availed of not only at the point when the child is
born but at any subsequent period as is evident from the
illustrative causes which are adverted to in the provisions. Both
constitute distinct entitlements. [Paras 22, 23][572-D; 573-G-H;
574-A-B]
1.3 The facts of the present case indicate that the spouse
of the appellant had a prior marriage which had ended as a result
of the death of his wife after which the appellant married him.
The fact that the appellants spouse had two biological children
from his first marriage would not impinge upon the entitlement
of the appellant to avail maternity leave for her sole biological
child. The fact that she was granted child care leave in respect of
the two biological children born to her spouse

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.