HC stays transfer of woman law officer shifted during maternity leave

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has stayed the transfer orders of a woman law officer of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) when she was on maternity leave. HC has also issued notice to the Haryana government, as well as, the HSSC seeking reply on the issue. The allegations are that the joy of motherhood was sought to be curtailed by the government by transferring her during the duly sanctioned maternity leave.
“Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated March 22, 2018, whereby she has been granted maternity leaves from April 2, 2018. After this order was passed, the petitioner has been transferred from Panchkula to Kaithal on August 16. Her grievance is that once she is on maternity leaves, this order could not have been passed and even this is the fourth transfer order within two years. Operation of the impugned order qua the petitioner shall remain stayed,” observed the HC in its order released on Friday.

The case has been fixed for March 11, 2019 for further hearing. The matter had reached before the HC in the wake of petition filed by Sukhwinder Kaur, an assistant district attorney (ADA) posted at HSSC.

According to the petitioner, she was granted maternity leave as per the rules and was blessed with a baby boy on April 11, 2018.

Counsel for the petitioner Vikas Chatrath argued that since then petitioner was looking after her new born baby though she was suffering with post delivery health problems. However, to her utter surprise she was transferred to Kaithal without appreciating the fact that during maternity leave one cannot be compelled to join at new place and discharge her duties.

Chatrath submitted that it was beyond understanding that what prompted the department to transfer petitioner that too when she was on maternity leave, despite the fact there are three sanctioned post of ADAs and two other ADAs were working in the HSSC. The transfer shows non-application of mind, the policy has not been considered and addressed in the right perspective, argued the counsel.

The counsel also submitted that even the petitioner was not officially communicated about the transfer order. “It is only through her friends she came to know that transfer has taken place and thereafter she arranged the copy of the transfer order. The fact that the transfer order has not been communicated to the petitioner, shows that there is something more than what the eye can see,” argued the petitioner.