Tubectomy & Vasectomy Serve The Same Purpose Of Preventing Further Childbirth: Karnataka HC Directs KPTCL To Encash Rtd Employee's Privilege Leave

The Karnataka High Court has directed State's Power Transmission Corporation to encash 90 days unavailed privileged leave sanctioned for maternity care to a retired woman employee, which was forfeited from the terminal benefits on the grounds that the requirement of her husband undergoing vasectomy was not met with.

A Single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the petition filed by A Alice and granted her liberty to make a fresh representation to the Superintendent Engineer, BESCOM and seek 90 days encashment of privilege leave which was forfeited.

“If such a representation is made, the concerned authority is to take cognizance of the order passed by this Court and shall pay 90 days of encashment of privilege leave which was forfeited along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 01.05.2013 till the date of payment,” it said.

The petitioner served the Corporation for several years and she had availed maternity leave while in service. Upon reaching the age of superannuation, she was entitled to terminal benefits, including the encashment of privilege leave. However, the Corporation quoting Regulation 130 withheld 90 days' worth of leave encashment, citing a technicality regarding the requirement of her husband undergoing vasectomy for the petitioner to be eligible for maternity leave benefits.

Regulation 130 states that a married female employee having 3 or more living children may be granted maternity leave for delivery subject to the condition that her husband under goes vasectomy.

Petitioner-employee argued that Regulation 130 itself categorically states that tubectomy or vasectomy are one and the same as the net result is to avoid further bearing of children by the family. She contended that she has undergone tubectomy and thus the objective of the Regulation is fulfilled.

Agreeing, the Court said, “The Government Order in the preamble explicitly acknowledges both tubectomy and vasectomy as equivalent means to achieve the objective of preventing further childbirth by the family. This understanding is rooted in the recognition that the ultimate goal is to limit the number of children borne by government servants to four or fewer.”

Court said the petitioner's decision to undergo tubectomy aligns with this objective. It noted that prior to the GO, only tubectomy was mentioned in the Rules, indicating that the inclusion of vasectomy was an expansion of options rather than a replacement.

“The Government Order explicitly states that vasectomy is considered a reasonable alternative to tubectomy in cases where it is not advisable for the wife to undergo tubectomy due to health considerations. This acknowledgment accentuates the importance of flexibility and individual circumstances in the application of maternity leave benefits,” Court observed.

Thus it held that given the overarching objective of Regulation 130, which is to restrict the number of children borne by government servants, the technical distinction between tubectomy and vasectomy becomes less significant.

"Therefore, any hyper-technical interpretation of the Rule must be tempered with the understanding of its underlying purpose and intent. Moreover, considering the petitioner's extensive service and the fact that the maternity leave in question was sanctioned at the time, withholding terminal benefits, such as the encashment of privilege leave for 90 days, based on this technicality appears unjustifiable.”

Noting that the prolonged delay of nearly 30 years in addressing the issue of sanctioned leave in 1983 and the subsequent forfeiture of leave in 2014 has caused significant prejudice to the petitioner, the court said, “The sudden forfeiture of leave after such a lengthy period not only creates uncertainty but also 11 imposes undue hardship on the petitioner, who had rightfully assumed that the matter had been resolved. Therefore, the respondent - corporation bears responsibility for the delay and subsequent hardship faced by the petitioner. As the employer, the corporation is obligated to ensure fair and equitable treatment of its employees, including timely resolution of administrative matters and adherence to principles of natural justice.”

Allowing the petition it said, “The respondent-Corporation's decision to withhold terminal benefits of the petitioner after 30 years, especially in light of the sanctioned leave, is unwarranted and unjustifiable. The technicality regarding her husband's vasectomy should not override the substance of petitioner's compliance as the petitioner's action aligns with the spirit and intent of the regulation and should not be penalised based on a hyper-technical reading of the requirement.”

Appearance: Advocate Suvarna Lakshmi M L for Petitioner.

Advocate H.V.Devaraj for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 102

Case Title: A Alice AND Karnataka Transmission Corporation Limited

Case No: Writ Petition No 33653 OF 2014

Click Here To Read/Download Order