After perusing the material on record, I am of the opinion that the respondents were not justified in withdrawing the benefit from the petitioner. The instructions such as these have to be beneficially construed and once the period of leave granted to the petitioner did not exceed the period she was entitled to, the said benefit could not be denied to her. Simply for the reason that the instructions came into existence in May, 1992, would not give the respondents a ground to invalidate the grant of the benefit earlier granted to the petitioner1
The petitioner who is an employee of the respondents, applied for maternity leave initially for a period of three months from 1.4.1992 to 30.6.1992 which was granted. The petitioner applied for extension of the leave which was granted from 1.7.1992 to 30.9.1992. The total period of leave therefore, came to six months.
Subsequently, the Director, Higher Education, Haryana vide letter dated 4.9.1992 intimated the Principal of the College that the aforesaid six months maternity leave had to be construed from May, 1992 and not from 1.4.1992 for the reason that the instructions which enabled an employee to maternity leave of six months, came into existence on the said date i.e. from 20.5.1992. C.W.P. No.12630 of 1992 -2- The respondent/College thereafter cancelled three months maternity leave of the petitioner which was earlier sanctioned vide letter 29.6.1992. The impugned order would show that the period from 1.4.1992 to 20.5.1992 has been excluded from the benefit given to the petitioner. Annexures P-5 and P-6 are the orders to this effect.
After perusing the material on record, I am of the opinion that the respondents were not justified in withdrawing the benefit from the petitioner. The instructions such as these have to be beneficially construed and once the period of leave granted to the petitioner did not exceed the period she was entitled to, the said benefit could not be denied to her. Simply for the reason that the instructions came into existence in May, 1992, would not give the respondents a ground to invalidate the grant of the benefit earlier granted to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is accepted and the impugned orders Annexures P-5 and P-6 are set aside.
(MAHESH GROVER)
July 9, 2013 JUDGE GD
Print Page
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Sudha Arora vs Director, Higher Education, ... on 9 July, 2013
The petitioner who is an employee of the respondents, applied for maternity leave initially for a period of three months from 1.4.1992 to 30.6.1992 which was granted. The petitioner applied for extension of the leave which was granted from 1.7.1992 to 30.9.1992. The total period of leave therefore, came to six months.
Subsequently, the Director, Higher Education, Haryana vide letter dated 4.9.1992 intimated the Principal of the College that the aforesaid six months maternity leave had to be construed from May, 1992 and not from 1.4.1992 for the reason that the instructions which enabled an employee to maternity leave of six months, came into existence on the said date i.e. from 20.5.1992. C.W.P. No.12630 of 1992 -2- The respondent/College thereafter cancelled three months maternity leave of the petitioner which was earlier sanctioned vide letter 29.6.1992. The impugned order would show that the period from 1.4.1992 to 20.5.1992 has been excluded from the benefit given to the petitioner. Annexures P-5 and P-6 are the orders to this effect.
After perusing the material on record, I am of the opinion that the respondents were not justified in withdrawing the benefit from the petitioner. The instructions such as these have to be beneficially construed and once the period of leave granted to the petitioner did not exceed the period she was entitled to, the said benefit could not be denied to her. Simply for the reason that the instructions came into existence in May, 1992, would not give the respondents a ground to invalidate the grant of the benefit earlier granted to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is accepted and the impugned orders Annexures P-5 and P-6 are set aside.
(MAHESH GROVER)
July 9, 2013 JUDGE GD
No comments:
Post a Comment