Introduction:

In the case of Writ Petition No. 33653 OF 2014, the Karnataka High Court, led by Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, has directed the Karnataka Transmission Corporation Limited to encash 90 days of unavailed privileged leave forfeited from a retired woman employee, A Alice. The court’s decision revolves around the Corporation’s refusal to grant leave encashment, citing a technicality related to the requirement of the petitioner’s husband undergoing vasectomy for maternity leave benefits.

Arguments:

The Corporation, relying on Regulation 130, contended that the petitioner’s eligibility for maternity leave benefits hinged on her husband undergoing vasectomy. However, A Alice argued that the regulation recognizes tubectomy and vasectomy as equivalent means to achieve the objective of limiting the number of children borne by government servants.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Magadum, emphasizing the overarching objective of Regulation 130, noted that the technical distinction between tubectomy and vasectomy becomes less significant. The court highlighted the importance of flexibility in applying maternity leave benefits, especially considering individual circumstances and health considerations.

The judgment criticized the Corporation for the prolonged delay of nearly 30 years in addressing the sanctioned leave issue, causing significant prejudice to the petitioner. It deemed the forfeiture of leave based on a technicality as unwarranted and unjustifiable, asserting the Corporation’s responsibility for timely resolution of administrative matters and adherence to principles of natural justice.