The Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) led government for challenging an order granting maternity benefits to a woman employed as stenographer on a contractual basis with the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
A division bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur slammed the government and observed that its appeal was misconceived as the single-judge’s order granted benefits to a young woman who had served the consumer forum with utmost dedication for more than five years.
During the hearing, the bench also referred to the AAP government’s promised scheme of Mukhyamantri Mahila Samman Yojna which ascertains that Rs1,000 per month will be given to all adult women in the national capital. The Court expressed that it is surprised that the government which is giving great publicity to the scheme chose to contest an order giving benefit to a woman.
It, therefore, dismissed the appeal and ordered the government to pay Rs 50,000 costs to the woman. The court ruled that they find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order insofar as it directs the appellants to pay to the respondent salary and other monetary benefits for a period of 26 weeks for which period she had sought maternity benefits. It added that the appeal being misconceived is along with all pending applications dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000. It further ordered the government to pay the aforesaid costs to the respondent within four weeks from March 13.
The bench was dealing with an appeal lodged by the Delhi government against an order of the single-judge passed on October 6, 2023 granting maternity and medical benefits for a period of 26 weeks to a woman named Rehmat Fatima. The single-judge had declined Fatima’s plea for re-engagement on the post of stenographer on contractual basis.
Notably, it was the government’s case that Fatima’s contractual engagement was expiring on March 31, 2018 and, therefore, the government could not be saddled with the liability to pay wages for the entire period of the maternity leave availed by her which extended till August 31, 2018. The government contended that it could, at the best, pay the wages till March 31, 2018 and not for any period.
Considering the matter, the division bench concluded that according to Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the benefits payable to Fatima would not come to an end on expiry of the term of her contractual engagement.
It further held that they found no merit in the appellant’s plea that the respondent was not entitled to receive any benefits under the aforesaid Act for the period beyond 31.03.2018, the date when the term of her contractual engagement was expiring.