Public employment is no leisurely obligation, it is position of responsibility: Karnataka High Court

‘Protective umbrella of maternity benefits is intended to shield motherhood from the rigours of employment; it is not intended to immunise an employee from the discipline that employment necessarily demands’
At a time when countless qualified aspirants strive for the scarce opportunity of securing public employment, an employee who has been fortunate enough to secure such an opportunity cannot treat the employment with studied indifference, the High Court of Karnataka has remarked.
The court also said that “an appointment to public service cannot be regarded as a privilege to be enjoyed at convenience and an obligation to be discharged at leisure. A public employment is not merely a source of livelihood but it is a position of responsibility, carrying with it corresponding obligations of diligence, discipline and devotion to duty. The security that public employment affords is accompanied by the responsibility that public service demands.”
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while upholding the administrative decision of the High Court in discharging a 36-year-old probationary software technician for unauthorised absence after she was granted 169 days of extraordinary leave after she exhausted 180 days maternity leave and 35 days of earned leave. She had not reported back to duty claiming that no one is there to take care of her child at home as her husband too is employed.
The petitioner cannot seek to take shelter under the benevolent canopy of maternity protection for conduct that commenced after the exhaustion of maternity leave and continued even after the expiry of all other leave sanctioned to her, the court said while observing that “the protective umbrella of maternity benefits is intended to shield motherhood from the rigours of employment; it is not intended to immunise an employee from the discipline that employment necessarily demands.”
Stating that maternity leave is a right that the law zealously protects, and not a concession that the employer grudgingly extends, the court said that a right, however sacrosanct, cannot be stretched beyond its legitimate contours to become an inexhaustible charter for unauthorised absence.
- employment
- obligation
- position
- responsibility
- karnataka
- high
- court
- umbrella





