MRS. NEERA MATHUR versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 146 · Decided: 31-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MRS. NEERA MATHUR 
.v. 
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
r . ;,a. 
OCTOBER 31, 1991 
B 
[K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Life Insurance Corporation Service Rules: Appellant-Appointed as-
sistant in Life Insurance Corporation-Discharged during probation 
period-No reasons given-Later Life Insurance Corporation revealed 
that appellant withheld factum of being in family way in the medical 
c declaration-Court held the information required to be furnished in medi-
cal declar_ation affect modesty and self respect of women. 
The petitioner applied for the post of assistant in the Life 
Insurance Corporation of India. She was called for written test and 
also for interview and was successful in both the tests. She had to 
D 
file a declaration form which she submitted to the corporation on 
t"-
May 25, 1989. On the same day she was also examined by a lady 
doctor who was on the panel of the corporation and found medically 
fit for the job.Thereafter she underwent a short-term training pro-
gramme and given a letter of appointment dated September 25, 
E 
1989. She was put on probation for a period of six months and was 
entitled to be confirmed in the service, subject to satisfactory work 
report. 
The petitioner took leave from December 9, 1989 till March 8, 
1990. She applied for maternity leave on December 27, 1989 fol-
F 
lowed by medical certificate dated January 6, 1990. She delivered a 
full terin baby on January ll, 1990 in Dr.Hira Lal's Nursing Home 
and was discharged from there on January 19, 1990. 
On February 13, 1990 the petitioner was discharged from the 
service. during her period of probation. No ground was assigned and 
G 
the order seemed to be a discharge simplicitor. 
• -
The petitioner moved the l{jgJL~ourt, and the High Court, 
' --
refused to interfere'.with the ter~i'riitiOn since the petitioner's work 
during the period of probati0n°·was found to be not satisfactory. 
H 
Thereafter the petitioner appealed to this Court. After pre-
liminary hearing the court issued an interim mandamus directing 
~ 
146 
'---
NEERA MATHUR v. L.l.C. 
147 
the respondent to put the petitioner back to service within 15 days 
A 
~ 
from the date of receipt of the court order and also issued notice for 
final bearing. 
The corporation upon service of notice, filed the counter seek-
ing to justify the termination of petitioner's services on two grounds: 
(1) that the petitioner bad deliberately withheld to mention the fact 
B 
of being in the family way at the time of filling up the declaration 
form before medical examination for fitness. The same was revealed 
only when she informed the corporation that she bad given birth to 
,· 
a daughter. (2) Her work during the probation was not satisfactory. 
So it was an order of discharge simplicitor. The Corporation fur-
ther made reference to Instruction No.16 as to the medical examina- c 
tion for recruitment of class III and IV staff, wherein for the pur-
pose of appointment, if at the time of medical examination any lady 
applicant is pregnant, her appointment shall be considered three 
months after the delivery. 
Granting the appeal, the Court, 
D 
HELD: While we are moving forward to achieve the constitu-
tional guarantee of equal rights for women, the Life Insurance Cor-
poration of India seems to be not moving beyond the status quo. In 
the instant case there is nothing on record to indicate that the peti-
tioner's work during the probation was not satisfactory. The reason E 
for termination was only the declaration given by her at the stage of 
entering.the service, though the petitioner was medically examined 
by the lady doctor and found her medically fit to join the post. (148 
D,'E, 151 CJ 
.. 
The real mischief though unintended is the nature of the decla-
ration required from a lady candidate specially. the particulars re-
F 
quired to be furnished under columns (iii) to (viii) which are indeed 
embarrassing if not humilating. The modesty and self respect may 
perhaps preclude the disclosure of such personal problems. The 
corporation would do well to ddete such columns in the declaration. 
If the purpose of the declaration is to deny the maternity leave and 
G 
benefits to a lady candidate who is pregnant at the time of entering 
,.,. 
the service, the Corporation could subject her to medical examina-
· tion including the pregnancy test. (151 D-F] 
The interim order already given is made absolute though the 
appellant is not entitle

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