BENGALURU: A 71-year-old woman, who retired from the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd in 2013, only recently got the encashment for 90 days privilege leave that was denied to her 30 years ago. While giving her terminal benefits, a hyper technicality was raised, pointing that her husband did not undergo vasectomy though she underwent tubectomy, ignoring that both procedures serve the purpose of not bearing further children.
The petitioner, A Alice, had approached the Karnataka High Court in 2014.
“The 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 the petitioner’s compliance as her action aligns with the spirit and intent of the regulation and should not be penalised based on a hyper-technical reading of the requirement,” said Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum.
The court granted liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the authorities and seek 90 days encashment of privileged leave forfeited. Then, the authorities should pay encashment with 8 per cent interest per annum from May 1, 2013, Alice’s date of retirement, till the date of payment, the court ordered. The court said the 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.
After having served the Karnataka Electricity Board for several years, the petitioner availed maternity leave while in service. Upon reaching the age of superannuation, she was entitled to terminal benefits, including the encashment of privileged leave. However, the authorities quoting Regulation 130 withheld 90 days’ worth of leave encashment, citing a technicality regarding the requirement of her husband undergoing a vasectomy for the petitioner to be eligible for maternity leave benefits.
She contended that Regulation 130 categorically stated that tubectomy or vasectomy is the same as the net result was to avoid further bearing of children. She also contended that she has undergone a tubectomy and has also produced a certificate.