Case Briefing: Deepika Singh Versus Central Administrative Tribunal and Others 2022
Case Title and Citation
Deepika Singh Versus Central Administrative Tribunal and Others Civil Appeal No 5308 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 7772 of 2021) In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction,
Judgment Date: August 16, 2022.
Factual Background
The appellant, Deepika Singh, was working as a Nursing Officer at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER). She married Amir Singh in 2014, whose former wife had passed away in 2013. From his first marriage, Amir Singh had two surviving children. In 2015, the appellant requested that the names of these two stepchildren be entered into her official service record. The appellant subsequently gave birth to her first biological child on June 4, 2019. She applied for maternity leave from PGIMER under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972. PGIMER rejected her application on September 3, 2019. The rejection was based on the ground that she already had two surviving children (her stepchildren) and had previously availed Child Care Leave (CCL) for them. Consequently, PGIMER considered the child born to her as her “third child,” making the maternity leave inadmissible under the Rules of 1972. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the High Court affirmed this decision, holding that the appellant had two surviving children “for all practical purposes” and that the child born to her could only be considered a third child.
Issue(s)
The significant issue requiring determination turned on the interpretation of Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972. The core question was whether a female government servant who had two stepchildren (for whom she had previously taken Child Care Leave) was disentitled to maternity leave under Rule 43(1) for the birth of her first biological child, given that Rule 43(1) applies only to women “with less than two surviving children”.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to the grant of maternity leave under Rule 43. The judgments of the High Court and the CAT were set aside. The Court directed that the admissible benefits relating to maternity leave must be released to the appellant within two months.
Reason for the decision
- Purposive Interpretation: The Court mandated that Rule 43(1) must be interpreted using a purposive construction because beneficial legislation, such as social welfare legislation, should be given a liberal and broad approach. Literal construction must be avoided, and courts must bridge the gap between law and society by adopting a “social context adjudication” approach. The history of law requires adapting the law to society’s changing needs.
- Purpose of Maternity Leave: The grant of maternity leave under the Rules of 1972 is intended to facilitate the continuance of women in the workplace. The provision is crucial because, without such measures, many women would be compelled by social circumstances to give up work upon the birth of a child. Maternity provisions secure a woman’s right to pregnancy and maternity leave, allowing her to live an autonomous life both as a mother and as a worker.
- Distinction of Leave Entitlements: The Court emphasised that maternity leave (Rule 43) and Child Care Leave (Rule 43-C) constitute distinct entitlements. CCL can be availed for the two eldest surviving children for various needs like rearing, sickness, or education, at any subsequent period after birth. The previous grant of CCL to the appellant for the stepchildren cannot be used to disentitle her to maternity leave under Rule 43.
- Evolving Definition of Family: The traditional understanding of a “family” as a single, unchanging unit ignores the reality that familial relationships constantly change due to remarriage, separation, or the death of a spouse. Manifestations of the family unit that differ from traditional ones, such as those arising through remarriage or adoption, are equally deserving of protection and benefits available under social welfare legislation.
- Conclusion on Entitlement: The fact that the appellant’s spouse had two biological children from an earlier marriage would not impinge upon the appellant’s entitlement to avail maternity leave for her sole biological child. The law must give effect to the purpose of maternity leave rather than prevent its application based on changes in family structure.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that denying maternity leave to the appellant for her first biological child based on the existence of two stepchildren from her husband’s prior marriage was contrary to the spirit and purpose of Rule 43. The Court reinforced the principle that social welfare legislation, which promotes gender equality and supports motherhood, must be interpreted liberally to ensure women’s ability to continue participating in the paid workforce.
