The rejection of the written appeal of the State Government, the divisional bench of the High Court in Orissa, recently confirmed a three -year judgment that was issued on a bench with a judge who states that maternity leave and related benefits cannot be denied to a woman employed by a state on a contractual basis.
In a recent decision, the division bench of judges Dixit Krishna Shrhalpad and Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo confirmed the decision on one judge, which was from August 17, 2017, which ruled the contracting employee since 2017, which stated her department.
The employee who followed the terms of the contract was not entitled to maternity benefits, the state government argued and at the same time questioned earlier decisions.
However, the division’s bench refused to accept this position and confirmed the justification of the decision on one judge.
“Maternity leave with remuneration or comparable social benefits must be provided by the state through its policies and programs, because India is a signatory of the International Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Treaty (IkesCR) and the Convention for the elimination of all forms of Discrimination of Women (CEDAW).”
What did the court say
The bench emphasized the social importance of motherhood and the basic role of both parents in raising children.
“It is said that God could not be everywhere, and therefore created mothers. The idea of maternity leave is structured on the” zero separation “between the nursing mother and the nursing child,” the judgment said.
HC, who quoted the opinions of children’s psychiatrists and obstetricians, noted that the physical community between the mother and the child is mutually beneficial and supports a healthy connection, which is necessary for their well -being.
“The lacting mother has the basic right to breastfeed her child during her formative years. Similarly, the child has the basic right to be breastfeeding and raised in reasonably good condition. These two important rights are amalgams from which the state duty provides maternity benefits such as paid leave, as permissible,” the court arises.
Previous judgments of the Supreme Court and other Supreme Courts, which confirmed that contractual employees were entitled to maternity leave under the 1961 maternity benefits Act.
The rejection of the state government’s claim that the court has only qualified for ordinary civil servants that qualified for maternity leave noted: “The employee for the purpose of using such an advantage represents one homogeneous class and their artificial division based on the state of appointment falls from Article 14 of the Constitution.”
(Tagstotranslate) maternity leave
