List of Current Affairs

Source: Orissa High Court 

Why in News? 

The Orissa High Court in the matter of State of Odisha & Anr. v. Smt. Anindita Mishra has ruled that a woman employee cannot be denied maternity leave or benefits solely because she is employed on a contractual basis.  

• The Division Bench, comprising Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, emphasized that such a denial would be "abhorrent" to the very essence of humanity and womanhood. 

What was the Background of  State of Odisha & Anr. v. Smt. Anindita Mishra (2025) Case? 

• Background: 
• Employment Status: Smt. Anindita Mishra was employed as a 'young professional' by the State of Odisha on contractual basis after selection through normative process. 
• Posting Details: Name sponsored by G.A. Department and posted to Health & Family Welfare Department from 20th May 2014. 
• Contract Terms: Initially one-year contract subsequently renewed multiple times. 
• Maternity Application: After delivering a female child, applied for maternity leave on 17.08.2016 for period 17.08.2016 to 12.02.2017 with medical certificate. 
• Rejection: 2nd appellant rejected application on 07th June 2017 without assigning reasons 

Journey Through Courts: 

• Original Writ Petition: Filed WPC(OAC) No.1680 of 2017 challenging rejection of maternity leave. 
• Single Judge Decision: On 30th August 2022, Single Judge ruled in favor of employee, directing extension of maternity leave benefits. 
• Appeal to Division Bench: State filed W.A.NO.1074 OF 2023 challenging Single Judge's order. 
• Final Decision: Division Bench of Orissa High Court decided the matter.

What were the Court’s Observations?

On Fundamental Rights: 

• A lactating mother has a fundamental right to breastfeed a baby during formative years. 
• Baby has a fundamental right to be breastfed and brought up in good conditions. 
• These rights create State obligation to provide maternity benefits within permissible resources. 

On Welfare State Obligations: 

• "Ours is a constitutionally ordained Welfare State". 
• Government must conduct itself as model employer (citing Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234). 

On Reasoned Orders: 

• Non-speaking orders cannot be justified. 
• Employees cannot be told reasons are "stacked in Government Godown". 
• Orders must stand on intrinsic merits (citing Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851). 

On Equal Treatment: 

• Women employees constitute one homogenous class for maternity benefits. 
• Artificial bifurcation based on appointment status violates Article 14. 
• Contract vs. regular employee distinction is impermissible for maternity benefits. 

On Cultural Values: 

• Quoted Sanskrit verse: "yatr naaryaastu pujyante ramante tatr devatah" (Gods rejoice where women are honoured). 
• Such ideals should animate purposive interpretation of women welfare policies. 

On Constitutional Interpretation: 

• Quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Constitutions are intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories"/ 

Final Decision: 

• Appeal Rejected: Division Bench dismissed State's appeal. 
• Implementation Ordered: Single Judge's order to be implemented. 
• Compliance Report: To be filed within eight weeks. 
• Court's View: Single Judge rightly granted relief to "poor employee".

What is the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961?

About the Act 

Purpose and Scope: 

• Legislation is designed to protect and benefit women's employment during the maternity period. 
• Regulates employment of women in establishments for specific periods before and after childbirth. 
• Provides maternity benefits and other related facilities to working women. 
• Ensures women employees receive paid salary during absence from work for newborn care. 
• Protects the dignity of motherhood and enables proper child care by working mothers. 
• Provides financial security to women during maternity period. 

Legislative History: 

• Original Act enacted in 1961. 
• It came into force on November 1, 1963. 
• Significantly amended through the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. 
• Amendment Act became effective from April 1, 2017. 

Applicability: 

• Applies to establishments employing 10 or more employees. 
• Originally applied to establishments with more than 10 employees. 
• Provides all facilities to working women in dignified manner. 
• Ensures women can overcome motherhood state honorably and peacefully. 
• Eliminates fear of victimization for forced absence during pre-natal or post-natal periods. 

Eligibility Criteria 

• Woman employee must be employed with the establishment for at least 80 days in the past twelve months preceding the date of expected delivery. 
• Must be working in an establishment covered under the Act's scope. 

Key Provisions Under 2017 Amendment 

Enhanced Maternity Leave Duration: 

For Women with Less Than Two Children: 

• Maternity leave duration increased from 12 weeks to 26 weeks. 
• Pre-delivery leave was extended from 6 weeks to 8 weeks before the expected delivery date. 
• The remaining weeks can be spent after delivery. 

For Women with Two or More Children: 

• Maternity leave remains 12 weeks. 
• Cannot be availed before 6 weeks from expected delivery date. 
• No change from the original provisions for this category. 

Work from Home Provision: 

• Work from home facility introduced as new provision in 2017 amendment. 
• Can be availed after completion of maternity leave period. 
• Duration to be mutually decided between employer and woman employee. 
• Provides continued employment flexibility during early child care period. 

Crèche Facilities: 

• Establishments with 50 or more employees must provide crèche facilities. 
• Crèche must be located within prescribed distance as per Section 11A. 
• Women employees allowed four visits to crèche per day. 
• Crèche visits included in interval for rest, not deducted from working hours. 
• Supports working mothers in balancing work and childcare responsibilities. 

Extended Coverage for Adoptive and Commissioning Mothers: 

• 12 weeks maternity leave granted to women who legally adopt children below 3 months of age. 
• 12 weeks maternity leave provided to commissioning mothers. 
• Commissioning mother defined as biological mother who uses her egg to create embryo implanted in another woman. 
• Recognizes different forms of motherhood beyond traditional pregnancy and childbirth. 

Significance and Impact 

Social Protection: 

• Protects women from employment discrimination during maternity. 
• Ensures financial security during crucial motherhood periods. 
• Promotes gender equality in the workplace. 
• Supports work-life balance for women employees. 

Child Welfare: 

• Enables proper bonding between mother and child. 
• Supports breastfeeding and early child development. 
• Provides adequate time for post-natal recovery and child care. 

Economic Benefits: 

• Maintains women's participation in workforce. 
• Reduces financial stress during the maternity period. 
• Supports family economic stability. 
• Encourages women's career continuity. 

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

In the matter of Kiran Yadav v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., the Rajasthan High Court has restated that the hallmark of judicial pronouncements is its stability and finality and thus, they should not be unsettled lightly. 

What was the Background of Kiran Yadav v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2025) Case? 

Background and Initial Proceedings: 

• Kiran Yadav, aged 28 years, resident of Bijli Ghar Ke Pass, Singod Khurd, Viya Khejruli, District Jaipur, filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of her appointment as Physical Training Instructor (PTI). 
• The case originated from an advertisement dated 16th June 2022 for the post of PTI, where petitioner participated in the selection process. 
• Required qualification as per Clause 7 of the advertisement: Senior Secondary or equivalent examination from recognized Board plus Certificate/Diploma/bachelor's in physical education recognized by Government/National Council for Teacher Education. 

Educational Qualification Timeline: 

• The advertisement specified that candidates appearing in the qualifying examination could participate, subject to possessing requisite qualifications on or before the date of written examination. 
• Petitioner's B.P.Ed. result was first declared on 19th September 2022 - she was declared "FAIL" in one paper. 
• The written examination for PTI post was conducted on 25th September 2022. 
• The petitioner applied for re-evaluation of her answer sheet. 
• Re-evaluation result was declared on 23rd November 2022, wherein petitioner was declared "PASS". 

Appointment and Cancellation Journey: 

• Based on merit secured and treating her as eligible, petitioner was offered appointment on 15th December 2022. 
• Petitioner joined her duties as PTI pursuant to an appointment order dated 15th December 2023. 
• After joining, respondents cancelled her appointment vide impugned order dated 16th January 2025. 
• The cancellation was based on technical grounds that she did not possess the requisite educational qualification on the date of written examination. 

Before High Court: 

• Petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 16th January 2025 by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1628/2025 before High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. 
• The case was heard by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand. 
• An order was reserved.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

Precedent Analysis and Legal Position: 

• The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Jenany J.R. v. S. Rajeevan & Ors. (2010), which held that re-evaluation results cannot relate back to original result date. 

Court's Reasoning on "Relate Back" Theory: 

• The court rejected the "relate back" theory, stating that if re-evaluation results could relate back, it would create a dangerous precedent. 
• Hypothetical scenario considered: If re-evaluation result is declared after six months when the entire selection process is over, the entire process cannot be conducted individually for one candidate. 
• The court emphasized that person's candidature must be examined only on the cut-off date. 
• Law must meet all contingencies and circumstances. 

Final Judgment: 

• The court found no merit in the writ petition and rejected it. 
• Cancellation of petitioner's appointment was upheld as legally justified. 
• All pending applications, including stay applications, were dismissed. 

What are the General Principles of Judicial Pronouncements & Verdicts? 

Constitutional Mandate and Binding Nature:  

• Article 141 of Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) states that law declared by Supreme Court is binding on all courts within territory of India. 
• This ensures consistency and uniformity in application of law across the country. 
• Courts cannot depart from established precedents unless there are compelling reasons.  

Doctrine of Stare Decisis: 

• Stare decisis is a well-settled valuable principle of precedent that cannot be departed from lightly. 
• In a country governed by the Rule of Law, the finality of judgment is absolutely imperative. 
• Parties cannot re-open concluded judgments of the Court. 
• Judgments of the Court, particularly of the Supreme Court, cannot and should not be unsettled lightly. 

Characteristics of Judicial Verdicts: 

• Hallmark of judicial pronouncement is its stability and finality. 
• Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to vagaries of wind and weather. 
• Judicial pronouncements must have permanence and cannot be subject to constant change. 

Abuse of Process: 

• Re-opening concluded judgments would be tantamount to abuse of process of law and Court. 
• Such practice would have far reaching adverse effects on administration of justice. 
• Courts must maintain sanctity of judicial process and prevent misuse of legal procedures. 

Rule of Law Principles: 

• Courts must follow established legal principles and cannot create exceptions without valid justification. 
• The legal system requires predictability and consistency in judicial decisions. 
• Precedents serve as foundation for legal certainty and public confidence in the judicial system.