AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Muralee Krishna, J.
Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(C)No.5265 of 2026 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.
Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 1st respondent was appointed for a period of one year as Special Teacher in the BUDs Rehabilitation Centre under the 1st appellant Panchayath on contract basis, as per Ext.P3 Government order dated 07.02.2018, pursuant to a process of selection. The appointment was extended from time to time till 19.12.2025, by renewing the contract. Though the 1st respondent submitted an application for extension of contract, the 2nd appellant Secretary of the Panchayat, issued Ext. P6 letter dated 30.01.2026, stating that the Panchayath does not intend to extend the contract and that a fresh selection is being carried out. The 1st respondent has not paid her salary since 19.12.2025. Her Ext.P7 application dated 05.02.2026 for maternity benefit is not entertained. As per Ext.P3 Government order, a BUDs teacher having more than two years of service is not liable to be sent out except for valid reasons. The refusal to extend the contract amounts to termination of the 1st respondent’s service. By virtue of Section 60 read with Section 68 of the Code on Social Security 2020 (the ‘Code’ for short), maternity benefit cannot be denied to the 1st respondent and her services cannot be terminated. With these pleadings, the 1st respondent filed W.P.(C)No.5265 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;
“a)A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Ext.P6.
b)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 3rd respondent to accept Ext. P7 and act upon it in terms of law.
c)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to grant maternity benefit to the petitioner for the period commencing 01.03.2026”. 3. In the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel for appellants-respondents 2 and 3 filed a statement dated 09.06.2026 opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Annexures R2(A) to R2(D) documents. Thereafter, by the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2026, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition. Paragraphs 5 and 6 and the last paragraph of that of the judgment read thus;
“5.Petitioner’s term of employment has been extended thrice. Petitioner relies on clause 11 of Ext.P3 Government order dated 07.02.2018, wherein it is provided that those teachers working in the school for more than two years shall not be terminated until and unless there are sufficient reasons for the same. Petitioner would submit that the reason now stated in the counter affidavit is not seen reflected in Ext.P6 for terminating the service of the petitioner and that no reasons have been stated therein. Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 KHC OnLine 6446], wherein it is held that even in the case of a temporary employee, the provisions of Article 3(11) will come into play in case the termination is by way of a punishment.
6.Taking into consideration the fact that in Ext.P3 there is a specific rider that those teachers who are having more than two years of service shall not be terminated without having any sufficient reasons, and that no reasons have been stated in Ext.P6, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P6 with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, and pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the termination of the petitioner was without assigning any reason which was necessary in the light of clause 11 of Ext.P3, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the maternity leave benefits which shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the above said direction the writ petition is disposed of.”
Being aggrieved, the Grama Panchayat and it’s Secretary filed the present intra-court appeal.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent.
During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants submitted that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is only a contract employee in the Grama Panchayat. Her contract period expired on 31.12.2025. The Panchayat committee in its meeting held on 29.01.2026 decided not to extend the contractual engagement of the 1st respondent further. This fact was intimated to the 1st respondent by Ext.P6 letter dated 30.01.2026 of the 2nd appellant. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent, who did not work in the Panchayat after the aforesaid period, cannot claim maternity benefit by filing Ext.P7 application dated 05.02.2026 as she was no longer an employee of the Panchayat by that date. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects while passing the impugned judgment.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that from Ext.P7 request submitted by the 1st respondent to the Panchayat, it can be seen that she had been working in the Panchayat as on 05.02.2026. Therefore, she is entitled to the benefit of Section 60(3) of the Code. Her contract was terminated only with a view to deny her the aforesaid benefit, and she wanted to avail maternity leave with effect from 01.03.2026.
The learned Government Pleader also addressed arguments pointing out the factual aspects in the matter.
From the statement filed by the appellants in the writ petition, it can be seen that the 1st respondent was appointed as Special Teacher in the BUDs Rehabilitation Centre under the 1st appellant Gram Panchayat on a contract basis for a period of one year from 13.12.2022. After the expiry of the aforesaid period of one year, the contract was extended from time to time, each for a period of one year till 30.12.2025. However, the appellants received Annexure R2(D) complaint dated 09.10.2025 from the parent of a student attending the BUDs Rehabilitation Centre alleging that the 1st respondent had subjected the student to mental harassment. Upon expiry of the contractual period on 31.12.2025, taking into consideration all the facts, including Annexure R2(D) complaint, the Panchayat Committee in its meeting held on 29.01.2026 decided not to continue the 1st respondent by renewing the contractual engagement. It was decided in that meeting to fill up the posts through a fresh selection process. This fact was intimated to the 1st respondent by Ext.P6 letter dated 30.01.2026 of the 2nd appellant.
From the pleadings in the writ petition it is discernible that according to the 1st respondent herself she was not allowed to sign in the attendance register after 19.12.2025. She further stated in the writ petition that she was not paid salary after the said date. There is no decision by the Panchayat Committee to renew the contract period for the 1st respondent, and on the other hand, the decision of the Panchayat Committee is not to renew her contractual engagement. Ext.P7 request made by the 1st respondent to the Panchayat was on 05.02.2026. Before the said request itself, the Panchayat Committee had decided not to engage the 1st respondent further and intimated this fact to her by Ext.P6 letter. Clause 11 in Ext.P3 Government order does not absolutely prevent the Panchayat from terminating the service of the existing teachers having more than two years' experience. According to the appellants, the Panchayat Committee decided not to renew the contract of the 1st respondent for sufficient reasons, including Annexure R2(D) complaint. When the contractual engagement of the 1st respondent was over by 31.12.2025, and the Panchayat Committee decided not to renew her contractual engagement, the 1st respondent cannot claim that she continued in the employment, without any sufficient material to prove the same.
The materials on record would show that after submitting Ext.P7 request, the 1st respondent filed the writ petition on 10.02.2026, which was signed on 07.02.2026. On 12.02.2026, when the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge admitted the same on file and granted an interim order staying the operation of Ext.P6 for a period of two months. It was further ordered by the learned Single Judge that if the 1st respondent is in service, she should be permitted to continue till 21.05.2026. But nowhere in the writ petition is it specifically pleaded by the 1st respondent that she has been continuing in service after 31.12.2025. Therefore, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the interim order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge.
As per Section 60(2) of the Code, a woman cannot claim maternity benefits from her employer unless she has actually worked in the establishment at least 80 days in the 12 months immediately preceding her expected delivery date. Section 60(3) of the Code states that the maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be twenty-six weeks, of which not more than eight weeks shall precede the expected date of her delivery. Section 68 of the Code is applicable only in the case of discharge or dismissal or taking any other action mentioned in that Section on a woman employee, during her absence from work in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter VI of the Code. In the instant case, the period of contractual employment of the 1st respondent was over on 31.12.2025. She had not sought the benefit of Section 60(2) of the Code till the expiry of her contractual employment. As on the date of submission of Ext.P7 request by the 1st respondent, she was no longer an employee of the 1st appellant Panchayat. In such circumstances, she cannot claim any maternity benefit as provided under Section 60(3) read with Section 68 of the Code. Therefore, the 1st respondent is not entitled to any of the relief sought in the writ petition.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this writ appeal is liable to be allowed.
In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.5265 of 2026, and the writ petition stands dismissed.