Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P.No.38695 of 2024 K.Priyanka .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The General Manager HRM, UCO Bank Head Office, No.10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. 2.The Deputy General Manager and

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.38695 of 2024
K.Priyanka .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The General Manager
HRM, UCO Bank Head Office, No.10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001.
2.The Deputy General Manager and Zonal Head, UCO Bank, 328, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001.
3.Assistant General Manager and Deputy Zonal Head, UCO Bank, 328, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001.
4.Senior Manager, HRM,
UCO Bank, 328, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001.
.. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to approve the maternity leave and make full payment of salary for the period of 42 days from 29.08.2024 to 09.10.2024.
For Petitioner .. Ms.V.S.Saranya
For Respondents .. Ms.Aishwarya S Nathan
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the respondent to approve maternity leave applied by the petitioner and grant full payment of salary for the period of 42 days between 29.08.2024 to 09.10.2024.
2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the petitioner was working as Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-1) at Oraiyur Branch of UCO Bank. On 22.07.2024, the petitioner had submitted her resignation to the bank. The rules provide that for three months, she must continue to be in service and thereafter, the respondents must accept that particular resignation taking into consideration all factors. The three months period started on and from 22.07.2024 and ended on
21.10.2024. The petitioner had been relieved from service on 21.10.2024.
The resignation had been accepted on 31.08.2024.
3.But however, during that particular three month period, the petitioner had necessity to take maternity leave on and from 29.08.2024 till 09.10.2024. She was not able to attend office during that particular period. She actually suffered miscarriage and medical termination of pregnancy was also conducted. This fact cannot be either denied or disputed by the respondents. But holding that the petitioner had not worked between 29.08.2024 and 09.10.2024 for a period of 42 days, the respondents had taken a conscious decision to deny her salary for that 42 days.
4.In the counter affidavit, the respondents placed reliance on a staff circular letter No.69/82 dated 27.07.1982 which clarified Regulation 20(2) of the United Commercial Bank (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979, wherein during that particular three months notice period any leave, casual, sick or leave on medical grounds cannot be granted and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner however widened the scope of arguments by placing reliance on the guidelines issued by the respondents / UCO Bank themselves called UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979, wherein Regulation No.36 relates to maternity leave. It had been stated that on and from 01.04.2000 leave up to six months can be granted as maternity leave and the said leave could be extended up to 12 months. Leave may also be granted in case of miscarriage / abortion / medical termination of pregency.
6.The petitioner had suffered that particular ailment. The respondent should be a model employer and should understand that the petitioner having taken maternity leave, and having suffered miscarriage and having suffered the pain of medical termination of pregnancy had a valid reason to apply for leave. This cannot be equated with the guideline given by the staff circular No.69/82 dated 27.07.1982. The guideline No.36 of UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979, provides about the contingency on and from 01.04.2000 and relates to maternity leave. The stand of the respondents that no leave could be granted had not taken into its ambit the leave taken on maternity ground and particularly, further suffering medical termination of pregnancy.
7.The claim of the respondents to hold back the salary for 42 days has to be struck down by this Court. It is violation of all principles relating to the dignity of a woman and the right of a woman to have a child. It is not the fault of the petitioner that she had to suffer miscarriage and had to undergo medical termination of pregnancy. The counter affidavit is rejected in toto and the stand of the respondents is condemned by this Court.
8.It is contended that the salary was released for a period of 22 days and the respondents retained a lien over that particular salary also. That lien is also cancelled. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled for the salary for the total period of 42 days on and from 29.08.2024 till 09.10.2024 on the ground of maternity leave, suffering miscarriage and medical termination of pregnancy.
9.A direction is given that the respondents must forthwith release the salary of 42 days which had been held back by the respondents. Necessary orders in that regard must be passed within a period of four weeks from this date. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

22.04.2025
smv
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
To
1. The General Manager
HRM,
UCO Bank Head Office, No.10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001.
2.The Deputy General Manager and Zonal Head, UCO Bank, 328, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001.
3.Assistant General Manager and Deputy Zonal Head, UCO Bank, 328, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001.
4.Senior Manager, HRM, UCO Bank, 328, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J. smv W.P.No.38695 of 2024
22.04.2025