On March 20, the Madras High Court overturned the denial of maternity leave for a court staff member, describing the decision as \"inhuman\". The court directed the authorities to grant her maternity leave with full pay, and also ordered compensation of Rs 1 lakh for the mental distress caused by the rejection, as reported by News 18.
The case involved B Kavitha, an office assistant at the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court in Kodavasal, Thiruvarur district. As per the report, the magistrate had denied her maternity leave request on November 7, 2024, on the grounds that she had not submitted a marriage certificate. The magistrate also questioned the timing of her pregnancy, implying that it might have occurred before her marriage.
Kavitha, a widow who remarried in April 2024, had applied for leave in October 2024. Despite presenting photographs and a wedding invitation as marriage proof, her application was denied. A previous complaint against her husband Bharathi, accusing him of deception before their marriage, was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
A division bench comprising Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan criticized the magistrate\'s rejection, stating that an employer should not demand absolute proof of marriage unless it is disputed. The court pointed out that \"In an era where even live-in relationships are recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate of Kodavasal seems to have adopted an outdated view of the matter, seeking reasons to reject the application of the petitioner. This, in our opinion, is entirely unwarranted.\"
The bench denounced the magistrate for making baseless assumptions about the pregnancy, asserting that maternity leave cannot be denied based on personal judgments. \"We cannot comprehend the mindset of the employer, especially the Judicial Officers in this case. It is high time that Judicial Officers reform themselves and adopt a more pragmatic approach,\" the bench declared.
The court instructed the Principal District Judge to grant Kavitha maternity leave according to her entitlement. It also noted that any leave she had availed since her application should be considered maternity leave, and she should receive full salary for that period.
Furthermore, the court directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to disseminate its order among all Principal District Judges, ensuring that such unfair denials do not recur in the future.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
3The case involved B Kavitha, an office assistant at the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court in Kodavasal, Thiruvarur district. As per the report, the magistrate had denied her maternity leave request on November 7, 2024, on the grounds that she had not submitted a marriage certificate. The magistrate also questioned the timing of her pregnancy, implying that it might have occurred before her marriage.
Kavitha, a widow who remarried in April 2024, had applied for leave in October 2024. Despite presenting photographs and a wedding invitation as marriage proof, her application was denied. A previous complaint against her husband Bharathi, accusing him of deception before their marriage, was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
A division bench comprising Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan criticized the magistrate\'s rejection, stating that an employer should not demand absolute proof of marriage unless it is disputed. The court pointed out that \"In an era where even live-in relationships are recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate of Kodavasal seems to have adopted an outdated view of the matter, seeking reasons to reject the application of the petitioner. This, in our opinion, is entirely unwarranted.\"
The bench denounced the magistrate for making baseless assumptions about the pregnancy, asserting that maternity leave cannot be denied based on personal judgments. \"We cannot comprehend the mindset of the employer, especially the Judicial Officers in this case. It is high time that Judicial Officers reform themselves and adopt a more pragmatic approach,\" the bench declared.
The court instructed the Principal District Judge to grant Kavitha maternity leave according to her entitlement. It also noted that any leave she had availed since her application should be considered maternity leave, and she should receive full salary for that period.
Furthermore, the court directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to disseminate its order among all Principal District Judges, ensuring that such unfair denials do not recur in the future.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Register and Log In.
Maternity Leave Policy - posting.doc
Office Order regarding Maternity Leave for Contractual employee as per Amendment Act 2017.pdf
CiteHR.AI
(Fact Check Failed/Partial)-Actually, the case does fall under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. This law protects the employment rights of women during maternity and prohibits unfair dismissal. Appreciate your input!