The verdict of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, in favour of Dr Saima Jan marks a landmark affirmation of the rights of working mothers and a much-needed reminder to institutions about the human spirit behind maternity leave provisions. The Tribunal’s observation-that maternity leave cannot be denied merely because it concerns a third child-reasserts the principle that motherhood, and the dignity associated with it, cannot be restricted by bureaucratic rigidity or misinterpretation of service rules. It is indeed surprising, even disheartening, that the University of Kashmir chose to deny maternity leave to an Assistant Professor on such flimsy grounds. The Supreme Court has, in multiple judgements, categorically held that maternity benefits are not privileges but fundamental entitlements rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution-ensuring a woman’s right to dignity, health, and reproductive choice. Instead of upholding this constitutional commitment, the university’s authorities chose to rely on a narrow interpretation of rules, ignoring both the spirit of the law and precedents set by the highest court.
If there was any ambiguity regarding the applicability of the “two-child norm” under Rule 41 of the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, it could easily have been clarified by consulting higher authorities or the concerned ministry. Instead, an unreasoned rejection order caused unnecessary harassment to a committed academician. Dr Jan’s case is even more compelling given that during her second pregnancy-amid the COVID-19 pandemic-she continued performing her duties online and chose not to avail maternity leave.
Maternity leave is not a luxury or an optional concession; it is a basic facilitation to allow a mother to care for her newborn and recover physically and emotionally. The CAT’s direction to reconsider and issue a fresh, reasoned order is a precedent-setting reminder for all institutions to act compassionately and lawfully.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
