WritPetitionPAP250418.pdf
Rarna Pandey vs Union OI l"(l a & Ors. orr 17 July,2015 Delhi High Court Rama l'andey vs Ur.riou Of hrdia & Ors. or.r 17 July. zot5 Author': Rajiv Shakdher' * IN IHE HIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEI./ IEI.HI J uoqflten t reserved onr 12.12.201.4 % Judqftent delivered on: 17.07.2015 + WP(C) No. 844/2074 RAIV]A PANDEY PETITIONER Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORs, RES PONDENTS Advocates who appeared jn this case: For the Petitioner: Mr Sunit Kumar and Mr Rahut Sharma, Advocates For the Respondents: 14r Jasmeet Sj.ngh, CGSC v/lth Ms Kritika lulehra, Adv. for R-1' Mr S. Raiappa & Dr. Puran Chand, Advs. for R- 2 & 3. c0RAlvl: HON'8LE I.lR, JUSTICE RAJlV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FACTS r
r A synthesis of science and divinity (at least fo:: tliose who believe in it), led to the culmination of the petitioner's desire tor a child. Married, on 18.or'1998, to one Sh. Atul Pandey, the petitioner's, wish to have a child was fulfilled on 09.o2.2013, albeit via the surrogacy t'rtute. Her bundle ofjoy comprised of twins, who weLe born on the aforementioned date, at a city hospital.
conclusion
24, Irr view of tlie discussiolr above, the conclusiou tlrat I have reached is as follows :- 19 (i). A female employee, who is the coramissioning rnother, would be entitled to apply for materniry leave under sub-rule (D of Rule qS.
(ii). 'l'he cornpetent authority L::ised on nraterial placed before it would decide on the tiuring and thc period tbr whicli maternity leal'c ought to be glanted to a commissioning mother who adopts the surrogacy route. (iii). The scrutiny would be li,:l;:cl and detailed, rvhen leave is sought by a female ernployee, who is the cornmissioning rrother, Jt the pre-natal stage. In case maternity leave is declined at thc pl'e-natal stage, t-he competcnt hutlrority rvoulcl pass a reasoned older having regalcl to the uraterial, if any, piaced befole it, by thc funale ernployee, who seeks to avail maternity leave. ln a situalion where both the cotnrnissioning rnothcl and the surlogate rnothcl ale employees, l,hu ale othclwisc eligible fol leave (one on thc ground that she is a comnrissioning rnother and the other on the ground that she is the pregnaLt rvonren), a suitable adjustr.nent would be made by the col'npetent authoiity. (iv). In so far as grant ofleave q,.ra post-rlatal peliod is conccrned, the competcut autlrcr'ity lvouJcl oldinarill, grant such leave excr:-:t whele there ale substantial leasons fol declining a L equest made in that behalf. In this case as ',,;eii, the courpetent authority will pass a reasoned ordcr.
25.'l'he lvrit petition is disposr:d of, in the afbrerrentioned terrns. 26. Palties shall, however. beirl ilieil own costs. RAJIV SI{AKDIIER, J JULY 17, 2015 ld(/yg
Rarna Pandey vs Union OI l"(l a & Ors. orr 17 July,2015 Delhi High Court Rama l'andey vs Ur.riou Of hrdia & Ors. or.r 17 July. zot5 Author': Rajiv Shakdher' * IN IHE HIGII COURT OF DELHI AT NEI./ IEI.HI J uoqflten t reserved onr 12.12.201.4 % Judqftent delivered on: 17.07.2015 + WP(C) No. 844/2074 RAIV]A PANDEY PETITIONER Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORs, RES PONDENTS Advocates who appeared jn this case: For the Petitioner: Mr Sunit Kumar and Mr Rahut Sharma, Advocates For the Respondents: 14r Jasmeet Sj.ngh, CGSC v/lth Ms Kritika lulehra, Adv. for R-1' Mr S. Raiappa & Dr. Puran Chand, Advs. for R- 2 & 3. c0RAlvl: HON'8LE I.lR, JUSTICE RAJlV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FACTS r
r A synthesis of science and divinity (at least fo:: tliose who believe in it), led to the culmination of the petitioner's desire tor a child. Married, on 18.or'1998, to one Sh. Atul Pandey, the petitioner's, wish to have a child was fulfilled on 09.o2.2013, albeit via the surrogacy t'rtute. Her bundle ofjoy comprised of twins, who weLe born on the aforementioned date, at a city hospital.
conclusion
24, Irr view of tlie discussiolr above, the conclusiou tlrat I have reached is as follows :- 19 (i). A female employee, who is the coramissioning rnother, would be entitled to apply for materniry leave under sub-rule (D of Rule qS.
(ii). 'l'he cornpetent authority L::ised on nraterial placed before it would decide on the tiuring and thc period tbr whicli maternity leal'c ought to be glanted to a commissioning mother who adopts the surrogacy route. (iii). The scrutiny would be li,:l;:cl and detailed, rvhen leave is sought by a female ernployee, who is the cornmissioning rrother, Jt the pre-natal stage. In case maternity leave is declined at thc pl'e-natal stage, t-he competcnt hutlrority rvoulcl pass a reasoned older having regalcl to the uraterial, if any, piaced befole it, by thc funale ernployee, who seeks to avail maternity leave. ln a situalion where both the cotnrnissioning rnothcl and the surlogate rnothcl ale employees, l,hu ale othclwisc eligible fol leave (one on thc ground that she is a comnrissioning rnother and the other on the ground that she is the pregnaLt rvonren), a suitable adjustr.nent would be made by the col'npetent authoiity. (iv). In so far as grant ofleave q,.ra post-rlatal peliod is conccrned, the competcut autlrcr'ity lvouJcl oldinarill, grant such leave excr:-:t whele there ale substantial leasons fol declining a L equest made in that behalf. In this case as ',,;eii, the courpetent authority will pass a reasoned ordcr.
25.'l'he lvrit petition is disposr:d of, in the afbrerrentioned terrns. 26. Palties shall, however. beirl ilieil own costs. RAJIV SI{AKDIIER, J JULY 17, 2015 ld(/yg
No comments:
Post a Comment