Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal: In an Original Application challenging an order by which the maternity and postnatal child care leave of the applicant was illegally regularized as extra-ordinary leave, Medha Gadgil, Member, quashed and set aside the impugned order, and held that the applicant would be deemed to have completed her probation irrespective of her maternity leave and shall also be granted all consequential service benefits.
In the present case, the applicant joined government service as an Assistant Conservator of Forest wherein the rules mandated for a person in this post to be on probation for 3 years including a training course for 2 years and field training of 1 year. After 2 years, the applicant was issued order of appointment as a probationer after which she went on maternity leave from 21-10-2013 to 18-04-2014 for 180 days and took leave for postnatal childcare of 43 days both of which were regularized as extra-ordinary leave by an order dated 27-01-2015.
It was pointed out before the Court that the correct date of completion of the probation period for the applicant ought to have been 25.06.2014. However, the respondents issued the revised date of completion of probation period of the applicant along with others w.e.f. 5-3-2015. The advocate for the appellant also submitted that the period of maternity leave of 180 days followed by childcare leave of 43 days should have been included while determining the date of completion of the probation period by the applicant. In the final seniority list, the seniority of the applicant was shown to be 5-3-2015 even though she was allotted the date of 24-7-2014 to be the deemed date of appointment.
Both parties referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court along with provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981, and the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to substantiate their arguments.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The Tribunal noted that the applicant was denied maternity leave as she was on probation at the time and stated that to be a mother is a right of a woman and that the period of probation should not be a preventive factor or obstacle for a woman who wants to be a mother during her probation. Further, it was said that the seniority of a female employee should not go below her colleagues of the same batch on the ground that she was absent on account of maternity leave. However, an employee must complete the period of probation.
It was also analyzed by the Tribunal that an adequate period is required to assess the performance of the employees and no concession is to be given to any female employee even on account of maternity leave. However, her seniority also should not suffer just because she wishes to be a mother which is her basic human and natural right.
Thus, the Tribunal stated that this matter could be resolved by applying different methods of computation of the period of assessment of the performance. It was held that the period of maternity leave or extra-ordinary leave granted for childcare is to be extended only for assessment of the work and the performance of such female employees. If the performance is found satisfactory after the expiry of the extended period, then she is to be given a deemed date of seniority as per the date of completion of her batch mates. However, if the performance is not satisfactory, then by routine her probation can be extended. Thus, by this method of computation, the establishment gets a sufficient period for assessment of the performance, and the rights of the mother to be with her child are also protected.
Hence, the Court quashed and set aside impugned order b and it was held that the leave period of the applicant was to be considered as maternity and childcare leave, and that the applicant be deemed to have completed her probation on 24-7-2014. The respondent was asked to grant all consequential service benefits to the applicant within two months from the date of the order.
[Revati Anil Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, Original Application No. 814 of 2023, Order dated 19-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Applicant — Advocate A.V. Bandiwadekar
For Respondent — Advocate K.S. Gaikwad
