CASE ANALYSIS

DEEPIKA SINGH (APPELLANT)

Vs
CETRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHER …
(RESPONDENT)

DATED - 16AUGUST 2022

COURT - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH – JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

INTRODUCTION
The case of Deepika Singh vs. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) revolves around a
legal dispute concerning employment rights within the public administration. The appellant
Deepika Singh, a government employee initiated legal proceedings against the central
administrative tribunal, accusing violation of her rights.

Background of Parties Involved:

 Deepika Singh:
As a public servant in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education [PGIMER] in
Chandigarh. She was appointed nurse since 25 November 2005. On 18 February 2014 she
got married to Amir Singh. She later filed an application on 4 May 2015 requesting the
authority in PGIMER to enter the name of two children born from the first marriage of her
spouse.
On 6 June 2019 she applied for maternity leave for her own born biological child. Under
the Central Civil Service (CCS) Rules 1972 R.43.

 Central Administrative Tribunal:

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) is an independent quasi-judicial body
established in India. Its creation was mandated by the Central Administrative Tribunals
Act 1985. The main job of the CAT is to solve problems and complaints about how people
get hired and the rule for working in government jobs.
 CASE ANALYSIS

FACT

 The appellant was a nurse at PGIMER since 25 November 2005. Later in her life is got
married to Amir Singh on 18 February 2014.
 Her husband Amir Singh, who has already been married once. Had two children with him
of his first wife who passed away on 16 February 2013.
 Amir Sigh already had 2 children, a male child born 1 February 2001 and a female child
born on 3 march 2005. Which were later adopted by the appellant, later on 4 May 2015.
 First child of her spouse was born on 1 February 2001 (male) and her second child was
born on 3 March 2005.
 Under the authority of PGIMER she registered the names of two children of her spouse to
her official service record.
 On 4 June 2019, Appellant had her first biological child. Appellant applied for a maternity
leave on 6 June for the period from 27 June 2019 to 23 December 2019.
 The authority at PGIMER sought clarification from the appellant regarding her having two
surviving children on 3 July 2019
 The appellant submitted reply on 24 July 2019.
 On 3 September 2019, on grounds that she had two surviving children and availed of
childcare leave earlier for the two children born from the first marriage of her spouse. The
authority at PGIMER rejected her grant for leave.
 Authorities at PIGMER stated that according to The Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules
1972, the child born by her will be considered as her third child and her application for
maternity leave is inadmissible.
 Aggrieved by the decisions, the appellant moved to the Central Administrative Tribunal at
its Chandigarh Bench (CAT).
 29 January 2021, CAT upheld the decision of the respondents to reject her maternity
leave.
 The appellant moved to the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the
constitution.
 16 march 2021, the High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no
illegality in the judgement of the CAT.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

o Whether the maternity leave could be allowed on the ground that she had previously
availed child care leave for her two non-biological children?

o Whether the maternity leave and child care leave are two distinct entitlements?
 CASE ANALYSIS

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
The analysis revolves around a legal case involving Deepak Singh and the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) concerning the interpretation of the 1972 Rules' use of the
term 'children' in Rules 43(1) and 43-C, specifically related to maternity and child-care leave.
The focus shifts from a potentially problematic definition of 'children' to examining the rules'
objectives, particularly in the context of benefiting women.
1. Ambiguity in 'Children' Definition:
 The 1972 Rules lack clarity on whether 'children' refers exclusively to biological
offspring, leading to potential contradictions in granting maternity and child-care leave.
2. Shift to Beneficiary-Focused Inquiry:
 The Court redirects the inquiry from defining 'children' to understanding the overarching
objectives of the 1972 Rules, with a particular emphasis on benefiting women.
3. Constitutional Alignment and Gender Roles:
 The Court links the 1972 Rules to Article 15 of the Constitution, emphasizing non-
discrimination and leveraging Article 15(3) for crafting beneficial provisions favouring
women.
4. De Facto Inequality and Gender Roles:
 Acknowledging societal gender roles, the Court recognizes women's disproportionate
child-care responsibilities, backed by statistical evidence.
5. Avoidance of Essentialization:
 While noting the societal pressure on women, the Court refrains from essentializing
women as caretakers, highlighting that gendered roles are socially constructed.
6. De Facto Inequality's Role:
 The Court utilizes de facto inequality to support the argument that the 1972 Rules
constitute socially beneficial delegated legislation.
7. Family Paradigm Shift:
 The Court challenges traditional parent-child paradigms, acknowledging various ways
individuals assume parental responsibilities beyond biological connections.
8. Inclusive Notion of 'Family':
 The Court rejects the fixed idea of a family, recognizing unmarried partnerships and queer
relationships as legitimate manifestations deserving legal protection and benefits.
9. Broader Implications:
 The judgment's implications extend beyond maternity leave, addressing de facto inequality
and unfavourable treatment, particularly in cases challenging legal recognition of various
familial and companionship structures.
10. Right to Love and Legal Barriers:
 CASE ANALYSIS

 Drawing from evolving jurisprudence, the Court suggests a need to revaluate socio-legal
barriers limiting the right to love to predefined patterns, particularly in the context of
same-sex relationships.
11. Conclusion without Definitive Finding:
 The Court avoids a conclusive stance on the meaning of 'children,' expanding the parent-
child paradigm to include non-biological children, while acknowledging the
compassionate view taken by the Institute in granting child-care leave.

In essence, the analysis underscores the Court's strategic focus on the broader objectives and
societal implications of the 1972 Rules, emphasizing gender equality, challenging traditional
family paradigms, and advocating for an inclusive understanding of love and familial
relationships.

RELATED LAW AND PRECEDENTS

 Article 14: Equality before law - The State shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."

 Article 15 (3) the Indian Constitution is a provision that allows the State to make special
provisions for women and children. Here is the text of Article 15(3): Nothing in this article
shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

 Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty - No person shall be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

 Article 39: The Indian Constitution falls under the Directive Principles of State Policy.
These principles are guidelines for the government to establish a just and equitable society

 Article 42: The Indian Constitution is a directive principle of state policy that falls under
Part IV. Directive Principles are guidelines for the government to shape policies and laws,
aiming to establish social and economic justice in the country.

 Article 25 (2): An introduces a limitation to the freedom of religion granted in Article

25(1). It states that the State is empowered to make laws regulating or restricting any
economic, financial, political, or secular activity associated with religious practices.

 Article 11 (2)(b): Of CEDAW requires states to introduce maternity leave with pay or
comparable social benefit

 The Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972

It is a set of regulations that govern the leave policies for employees in the central
government services in India. Enacted to manage the various types of leaves that
government employees are entitled to, these rules outline the procedures and conditions
for granting different forms of leave, such as earned leave, casual leave, and maternity
 CASE ANALYSIS

leave. The rules also address issues like the granting of special disability leave and the
commutation of leave into cash. The purpose is to ensure a systematic and fair approach to
employee leave management within the central civil services, providing a comprehensive
framework for various types of leaves and their utilization.

 Maternity Benefit Act 1961

The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is a law in India designed to protect the rights of women
during pregnancy and motherhood. The Act ensures that women working in certain
establishments are entitled to paid maternity leave and other benefits. According to the
Act, pregnant women are eligible for maternity leave of up to 26 weeks, with provisions
for additional leave under certain circumstances. During this period, they receive a salary
to support their financial needs. The Act also mandates employers to provide facilities like
nursing breaks and crèche services to ensure the well-being of both the mother and the
new-born. The aim is to promote the health of pregnant women, safeguard their
employment, and create a supportive work environment for new mothers.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark case in India where the Supreme Court
decriminalized consensual sexual relations between same-sex individuals. In a historic
judgment in 2018, the Court declared that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which
criminalized homosexuality, was unconstitutional. The ruling upheld the right to privacy and
individual autonomy, emphasizing that the discrimination faced by the LGBTQ+ community
violated fundamental rights. This decision marked a significant step towards recognizing and
protecting the rights of the LGBTQ+ community in India, fostering inclusivity, and
challenging societal prejudices.

Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a notable case in India where the Supreme Court struck
down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized adultery. In a progressive
judgment in 2018, the Court held that the law was arbitrary and discriminated against women
by treating them as the property of their husbands. The ruling emphasized the principles of
gender equality and individual autonomy within marriages. By decriminalizing adultery, the
Court aimed to promote a more equitable and modern understanding of marital relationships,
acknowledging the agency and autonomy of individuals within the institution of marriage.
The judgment was a significant step towards dismantling patriarchal norms embedded in the
legal framework.

CONCLUSION
In the case of Deepika Singh vs. CAT, the court made a really important decision about
maternity leave for working women. They didn't get too caught up in debating the technical
meaning of the word 'children' but instead focused on why the rules were made in the first
place. The court said that these rules are there to make sure that women don't face
discrimination at work just because they have to take care of their children. They also talked
about how in families, women often end up doing most of the child-care work, and these
rules help support them. So, the court decided that the rules are like a good friend, helping out
 CASE ANALYSIS

working moms and making sure they don't miss out on important things at their jobs just
because they are also busy being great moms.

This decision is not just about maternity leave; it's like changing the way we think about
families. The court said families can be different – not just a mom, dad, and kids, but also
other kinds of loving relationships. It's like saying, "Hey, families can be made in different
ways, and everyone deserves the same respect and benefits." So, the decision is not just a win
for Deepika Singh but also for how we see families and support working women. It's like a
positive change that can help lots of people.