Author : Manoj Kumar Yadav, Narayan Uccha Shiksha Sanathan law College, Prayagraj
To the point
The appellant, Deepika Singh, was employed by the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) in Chandigarh as a nursing officer.
She married a man who had two children from a prior marriage.
Deepika requested that those two stepchildren be added to her service records so that they would be appropriately acknowledged as being under her care.
She utilized the “Child Care Leave (CCL)” plan under the relevant leave requirements for government employees in order to care for those two children (given their age, dependency, or needs).
2019 saw the birth of Deepika’s first biological child.
She claimed maternity leave in compliance with Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (CCS Leave Rules), which allows a female government employee with fewer than two surviving children to take up to 180 days of maternity leave.
The firm (PGIMER) denied her maternity leave since she already had “two surviving children” (her husband’s two children from a prior marriage) and had secured CCL for them, therefore making her newborn a “third child.”
Deepika initially appealed this decision to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), but her petition was turned down. She subsequently filed a petition with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which also upheld the rejection.
She ultimately filed a Special Leave Petition with the Supreme Court of India (SC) to challenge the denial under Article 136 of the Constitution.
By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, there was a glaring contradiction between the administrative/lower-court interpretation—counting stepchildren + CCL → no maternity leave—and the appellant’s claim that she should be entitled to maternity leave for biological delivery regardless of prior child-care leave for non-biological children.
Use of legal jargon
Interpretation of “less than two surviving children” under Rule 43(1):
• Do stepchildren—children who are not the woman’s biological children but are under her guardianship or record—qualify as “surviving children”?
• Does “surviving children” just relate to biological children (or legally adopted children) for the purposes of maternity leave under Rule 43?
Distinguishing between Maternity Leave and Child Care Leave (CCL)
• Does one lose their eligibility for maternity leave after using Child Care Leave for stepchildren?
• If the two leaves are interchangeable or substitutable, or if they are distinct and have different functions.
Consequences for the Constitution and welfare laws:
• Does denying maternity leave in this case violate the principles of gender justice, equality, dignity, and nondiscrimination found in the Constitution?
• Whether social welfare laws—like those governing maternity benefits—should be interpreted liberally and intentionally as opposed to strictly or mechanically.
Recognition of evolving family and societal systems
• Should legal regulations consider “atypical families,” such as stepfamilies, single parents, adoptive parents, etc., or should they completely adhere to conventional concepts (nuclear families with biological parents and children)?
The proof
• On August 16, 2022, the Supreme Court Bench’s Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna delivered the decision.
• A woman may only take maternity leave if she has less than two living children, according to Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.
Important Documentary Information: • Deepika Singh was employed by the government as a nursing officer at PGIMER in Chandigarh. • She utilized Child Care Leave (CCL) for her two stepchildren from her husband’s previous marriage.
• After giving birth to her first biological child in 2019, she asked for maternity leave.
• Because she previously had “two surviving children,” the leave request was turned down by her department.
• The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) deemed stepchildren to be “surviving children” and declined to provide relief, according to the Lower Court’s findings.
Abstract
The landmark decision in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. (2022) by the Supreme Court of India signifies a progressive shift in the recognition of non-traditional family configurations and the interpretation of maternity benefits. According to Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, the government employee in question had already used Child Care Leave (CCL) for her two stepchildren, exceeding the statutory cap of “two surviving children.” As a result, her request for maternity leave for her first biological child was denied.
Case Laws
1.Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, 1999 (Supreme Court) (child welfare and guardianship)
2.The Supreme Court decided Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu in 1984 (minor welfare above parental rights).
3.In Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma, 2015 (Supreme Court), the mother’s custody rights
4.Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari v. Tejaswini Gaud & Ors., 2019 (Supreme Court) (welfare principle above biological claims)
5.In Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, 2008, the Supreme Court assessed mental and emotional well-being.
6.Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjay Majoo, a 2011 Supreme Court case involving custody disputes and child welfare
7.The Supreme Court ruled in Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2008) that child welfare is crucial.
Conclusion
The Court determined that Rule 43 must be interpreted purposefully since it is a part of social welfare legislation, meant to safeguard the welfare of women and children, and cannot be read automatically.
A stringent literal interpretation that counts stepchildren while ignoring context would undermine the statutory aim of maternity leave, which is social welfare.
The Court clarified that there are qualitative and functional differences between maternity leave and child care leave. While child-care leave (CCL) is focused on providing postpartum care (or for already-born children), maternity leave is linked to biological childbirth and recovery.
Taking CCL earlier does not exhaust a woman’s access to maternity leave under Rule 43 (for non-biological children).
The Court concluded that because Rule 43 is a component of social welfare legislation, intended to protect the welfare of women and children, and cannot be read automatically, it must be understood intentionally.
Maternity leave’s legislative goal of social welfare would be undermined by a strict literal interpretation that counts stepchildren while disregarding context.
The Court explained that maternity leave and child care leave differ both qualitatively and functionally. Maternity leave is associated with biological childbirth and recuperation, whereas child-care leave (CCL) is concentrated on providing postpartum care (or for already-born children).
FAQS
Is it feasible to get custody of a non-biological child in India?
Yes. Under the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890, the court may grant custody or guardianship to a non-biological parent regardless of biological ties if doing so is in the child’s best interests and welfare.
Do stepchildren and adoptive children have the same legal status as biological children?
Yes. Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act, 1956 states that an adopted child has the same legal rights as a biological child, including inheritance, maintenance, and custodial rights.
Can a stepmother or stepfather ask for custody of their children?
A stepparent may request custody if they can show that they are financially, emotionally, and morally committed to the child. Courts prioritize the care, safety, and psychological comfort of children over biological relationships.
Are benefits like Child Care Leave (CCL) available to non-biological children?
Yes. In Deepika Singh v. CAT (2022), the Supreme Court decided that non-biological children, including stepchildren, need to be entitled to child care benefits like maternity leave, CCL, and adoption leave.
