Last updated:February 13, 2025, 15:57 ist

The Court found that when maternity leave is sanctioned, it cannot be limited to justify dismissal.

The Court led the state to pay restances of salary to the affected employee and decided that the termination order would be effective only after completed sanctioned maternity leave. (Representative Image: Shutterstock)

Punjab & Haryana High Court has decided that the services of an employee on maternity leave cannot be terminated during the period of leave. The Court, which is led by fair harsimran Singh Sethi, considered that when maternity leave is sanctioned, it cannot be limited to facilitate dismissal. The Court led the state to pay for restractions of salary to the affected employee and decided that the termination order would be effective only after completed sanctioned leave.

“When an employee was on maternity leave, the said period of maternity leave could not have been limited to terminate the service for an employee and the employees’ services could have been distributed after she went after using maternity leave,” the court observed.

The Court made his judgment when he heard a number of petitions. The petitioners, who were involved as temporary employees, sought regulation of their services. It was claimed that they had continuously worked in their respective positions without any interim protection from the court, which showed that their services were still necessary. It was claimed that they would not be replaced by another set of temporary employees under the same conditions, as such compensation would cause them unnecessary difficulties.

One of the petitioners, Balvir Kaur, especially challenged her dismissal while she was on maternity leave. She claimed that the dismissal was unfair and violated established legal protection for maternity leave.

The responding state relied on a previous decision (Bikramjit Singh and others against State of Punjab et al.), Delivered by High Court’s Coordinate bench, where a similar requirement for regulation was rejected. The respondents claimed that the petitioners could not claim an absolute right to continued employment. However, they did not provide a valid justification for limiting Balvir Kaur’s maternity leave to terminate her employment.

The Court led to the petitioners, who currently worked, would be allowed to continue in service until the work on their respective services ceased, subject to satisfactory performance. It confirmed: “Given the discontinued law principle that the temporary employment cannot be replaced by another set of temporary employees, the petitioners will not be replaced by another set of temporary employees under the same terms that the petitioners work. “

The bench considered that Balvir Kaur, categorically, noted that maternity leave was already sanctioned by the competent authority, which was incorrectly limited to terminate the petitioner’s services. The Court decided: “No valid justification has come from the respondents to limit the period of maternity leave to terminate the services of the petitioner-balvir Kaur, therefore the petitioner-balvir will be entitled to the salary of the period she was granted maternity leave and the order for termination of Her services will apply from the date she completed the said period. “

In summary, the court led the state to release Kaur’s ongoing salary within eight weeks and noted that she had the right to receive her full salary for the period of leave.