Supreme Court of India
MRS. NEERA MATHURversusLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1991 INSC 282
- Decided
- 31 October 1991
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K JAGANNATHA SHETTY
Holding
The Court held that the termination was not justified on the ground of an alleged false declaration and that the requirement to disclose intimate reproductive details is unreasonable, ordering reinstatement of the appellant (without salary for the intervening period).
Summary
Mrs. Neera Mathur applied for and was appointed as an Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, undergoing a medical examination and a six‑month probation. She took maternity leave during her probation and gave birth in January 1990. The Corporation discharged her on 13 February 1990 without assigning any reason, later alleging that she had deliberately concealed her pregnancy by giving a false declaration about her last menstrual period. The High Court refused to interfere, holding her work unsatisfactory, but the Supreme Court found no evidence of unsatisfactory performance and considered the alleged false declaration to be a product of an unreasonable and humiliating declaration form. The Court held that the requirement to disclose intimate reproductive details infringes on a woman's modesty and self‑respect, and therefore the termination was unjustified. Consequently, the interim mandamus was made absolute, ordering her reinstatement, though she is not entitled to salary for the period between discharge and reinstatement.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination of the appellant during probation without assigning reasons constitutes a valid discharge simplicitor.
- Whether the appellant's alleged false declaration regarding her menstrual period and pregnancy justifies termination.
- Whether the requirement to disclose intimate reproductive information in the medical declaration violates the modesty and self‑respect of women and is constitutionally permissible.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to reinstatement and salary for the period of discharge.
Subjects
probationdischarge simplicitormaternity leavegender discriminationemployment lawmedical declarationmodestyequal rightsLife Insurance Corporationconstitutional lawArticle 226
Judgment
A MRS. NEERA MATHUR
.v.
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. .r;,a.
OCTOBER 31, 1991
B [K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.]
Life Insurance Corporation Service Rules: Appellant-Appointed as-
sistant in Life Insurance Corporation-Discharged during probation
period-No reasons given-Later Life Insurance Corporation revealed
that appellant withheld factum of being in family way in the medical
c declaration-Court held the information required to be furnished in medi-
cal declar_ation affect modesty and self respect of women.
The petitioner applied for the post of assistant in the Life
Insurance Corporation of India. She was called for written test and
also for interview and was successful in both the tests. She had to
D file a declaration form which she submitted to the corporation on t"-
May 25, 1989. On the same day she was also examined by a lady
doctor who was on the panel of the corporation and found medically
fit for the job.Thereafter she underwent a short-term training pro-
gramme and given a letter of appointment dated September 25,
1989. She was put on probation for a period of six months and was
E entitled to be confirmed in the service, subject to satisfactory work
report.
The petitioner took leave from December 9, 1989 till March 8,
1990. She applied for maternity leave on December 27, 1989 fol-
lowed by medical certificate dated January 6, 1990. She delivered a
F full terin baby on January ll, 1990 in Dr.Hira Lal's Nursing Home
and was discharged from there on January 19, 1990.
On February 13, 1990 the petitioner was discharged from the
service. during her period of probation. No ground was assigned and
-
the order seemed to be a discharge simplicitor. •
G
The petitioner moved the l{jgJL~ourt, and the High Court,
refused to interfere'.with the ter~i'riitiOn since the petitioner's work
--
'
during the period of probati0n°·was found to be not satisfactory.
Thereafter the petitioner appealed to this Court. After pre-
H liminary hearing the court issued an interim mandamus directing
146
- ~
'---
NEERA MATHUR v. L.l.C. 147
the respondent to put the petitioner back to service within 15 days A
~
from the date of receipt of the court order and also issued notice for
final bearing.
The corporation upon service of notice, filed the counter seek-
ing to justify the termination of petitioner's services on two grounds:
(1) that the petitioner bad deliberately withheld to mention the fact B
of being in the family way at the time of filling up the declaration
form before medical examination for fitness. The same was revealed
only when she informed the corporation that she bad given birth to
,·
a daughter. (2) Her work during the probation was not satisfactory.
So it was an order of discharge simplicitor. The Corporation fur-
ther made reference to Instruction No.16 as to the medical examina-
tion for recruitment of class III and IV staff, wherein for the pur-
c
pose of appointment, if at the time of medical examination any lady
applicant is pregnant, her appointment shall be considered three
months after the delivery.
Granting the appeal, the Court,
D
HELD: While we are moving forward to achieve the constitu-
tional guarantee of equal rights for women, the Life Insurance Cor-
poration of India seems to be not moving beyond the status quo. In
the instant case there is nothing on record to indicate that the peti-
tioner's work during the probation was not satisfactory. The reason
for termination was only the declaration given by her at the stage of E
entering.the service, though the petitioner was medically examined
by the lady doctor and found her medically fit to join the post. (148
.. D,'E, 151 CJ
The real mischief though unintended is the nature of the decla-
ration required from a lady candidate specially. the particulars re- F
quired to be furnished under columns (iii) to (viii) which are indeed
embarrassing if not humilating. The modesty and self respect may
perhaps preclude the disclosure of such personal problems. The
corporation would do well to ddete such columns in the declaration.
If the purpose of the declaration is to deny the maternity leave and
,.,. benefits to a lady candidate who is pregnant at the time of entering G
the service, the Corporation could subject her to medical examina-
· tion including the pregnancy test. (151 D-F]
The interim order already given is made absolute though the
appellant is not entitled to the salary from the date of discharge till
her reinstatement. [151 G] H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4488 of
1991.
Fr:om the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.91 of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P. No. 749of1990.
B R. Mohan for the Appellant.
F.S.Nariman, Kailash Vasudev, Ms. Alpana Kirpal and M.J.Paul for
' the Respondents.
The following order of the Court was delivered:
c ..,
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Leave granted.
When we are inoving forward to achieve the constitutional guaran-
tee of equal rights for women the life Insurance. Corporation of India
seems to be not moving beyond the status quo. ·The case on hand illus-
D trates this typical attitude of the Corporation.
The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant in the Life Insurance
Corporation of India ("the Corporation"). She was called for written test
and also for interview. She was successful in both the tests. She was asked
to fill a declaration form which she did and submitted to the Corporation
E on 25 May 1989. On the same day, she was also examined by a lady
doctor and found medically fit for the job. ·The Doctor who examined the
petitioner was in the approved panel of the Corporation.
The petitioner was directed to undergo a short-term training pro-
gramme. After successful completion of the training she wa" given an
F appointment letter dated 25 September 1989~·She was appointed as Assist-
ant in the Corporation. She was put on probation for a period of 6 months.
She was entitled to be confirmed in the service subject to satisfactory
work report.
The petitioner took leave from 9 December 1989 till 8 March 1990.
G ·1n ·fact, she applied for maternity leave on 27 December 1989 followed by
medical certificate dated 6 January 1990. She was admitted to the Nursing
Home of Dr. Hira Lal on 10 January 1990. She delivered a full-term bab~·
on 11 January 1990. She was discharged from Nursing Home on 19 lanu
ary 1990.
H On 13 February 1990, the petitioner was discharged from the serv-:
NEERA MATHUR v. L.I.C. [SHETTY, J.] 149
ice. It was during the period of her probation. It would appear from the A
order of discharge that no ground was assigned in it and it seems to be-a
discharge simplicitor. The petitioner moved the High Court under Article
- 226 of the Constitution challenging that order on the ground that it was
not a discharge simplicitor but based on some discrepancy in the declara-
tion made by her before joining the service. The Corporation in the coun-
ter resisted the case stating that the petitioner's work was not satisfactory B
and as such under the terms of the appointment she was discharged with-
out notice and without assigning any reason. The High Court refused to
interfere with the termination. The High Court observed that the Petition-
er's work during the period of probation was found to be not satisfactory.
The petitioner has now appealed to this Court. When the appeal was C
listed for preliminary hearing this Court issued notice for final disposal
and made an order as follows:
"The facts of the case compel us to issue an interim mandamus
dire~ting the respondents to put the petitioner back to service
and we accordingly issue a direction to the respondent to rein- D
state the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of
this order."
The Corporation upon service has filed the counter seeking to justify
the termination of the petitioner's services. It has been stated that the
Corporation discharged the service of the petitioner while she was still a E
probationer. At the time of discontinuing her services as a probationer, no
reasons were given and it was an order of discharge simplicitor. No stigma
was imputed to the petitioner. The petitioner was on leave from 9 Decem-
ber 1989 till 8 March 1990. The petitioner had deliberately withheld to
mention the fact of being in the family way at the time of filling up the
declaration form before medical examination for fitness. The petitioner F
concealed the fact of her being in the family way. this was .•wcr.hd later
when she informed the Corporation that she had given birth to .; dat. J}lter.
The Corporation also made reference to the terms of the declaration
as filled in by the petitioner on 25 May 1989:
G
"6. To be filled in by female candidates only in the presence of the
Medical examiner:
a) Are you married- Yes.
b) If so, please state :
H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A i) Your Husband's Name in full & occupation
Mr. PRADEEP MATHUR, Law Officer, Central Pollution Control
Board, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
ii) State the number of children, if any, and their present ages: One
daughter: I year and 6 months.
B
iii) Have the menstrual periods always been regular and painless,
and are they so now? ....Yes.
iv) How many conceptions have taken place?
How many have gone full-term? One.
c v) State the date of last menstruation: ... 29th April, 1989.
vi) Are you pregnant now? ... No. /
(
vii) State the date of last delivery: 14th November, 1987.
viii) Have you had any abortion or miscarriage? ... No."
It was further alleged in the counter affidavit that the declaration
given by the petitioner was false to the knowledge of the petitioner inas-
D
much as, as per her own averment she had delivered a full-term baby on
11 January 1990. The petitioner to her own knowledge, could not have
had a menstruation cycle on 29 April 1989 as stated by her in the declara-
tion on 25 May 1989. Dr. S.K.Gupta, MD, of Dr. Hira Lal Child &
Maternity Home, where the petitioner was admitted for delivery has certi-
fied that the petitioner had LMP on 3 April 1989. A copy of the certificate
E
of Dr. Hira Lal has also been produced as Annexure to the Counter Affi-
davit. It was asserted that the petitioner had deliberately given in her
declaration to the Corporation wrong date of menstruation as 29 April
1989 and she had given her correct date of LMP as 3 April 1989 to Dr.
S.K.Gupta. If she had mentioned the correct date of her menstruation in
F her declaration her appointment would have been deferred as per rules. It
was also contended that the decision to discharge the petitioner from the
service of the Corporation was on 2 grounds: (l) because of a false decla-
ration given by her at the very initial stage of her service; and (2) her
work during the period of probation was not satisfactory.
G Reference was also made to the Instruction 16 issued by the Corpo-
ration as to the Medical examination for recruitment of Class III and Class
IV staff. Clause 16 of the Instructions reads as under:
"16. MEDICAL EXAMJNA TJON:
No person shall be appointed to the services of the Corpora-
H tion unless he/she has been certified to be of sound constitu-
f
]
NEERA MATHUR v. L.I.C. [SHETTY, J.] 151
tion and medically fit for discharging his/her duties. The cer- A
tificates in the form given in Annexure IX should be from a
doctor, duly authorized for the purpose by the Appointing Au-
thority. If at the time of medical examination, any lady appli-
cant is found to be pregnant, lier appointment to the Corpora-
tion shall be considered three months after the delivery. This
would be subject to a further medical examination at the can- B
didate's cost and subject to the ranking list continuing to be
valid."
We have examined the matter carefully. We have nothing on record
to indicate that the petitioner's work during the period of probation was
not satisfactory. Indeed, the reason for termination seems to be different.
It was the declaration given by her at the stage of entering the service. It
c
is said that she gave a false declaration regarding the last menstruation
period with a view to suppress her pregnancy.
It seems to us that the petitioner cannot be blamed in this case. She
was medically examined by the Doctor who was in the panel approved by
D
the Corporation. She was found medically fit to join the post. The real
mischief though unintended· is about the nature of the declaration required
from a lady candidate. The particulars to be furnished under columns (iii)
to (viii) in the declaration are indeed embarrassing if not humilating. The
modesty and self respect may perhaps preclude the disclosure of such
personal problems like whether her menstrual period is regular or pain-
E
less, the number of conceptions taken place; how many have gone full
term etc. The Corporation would do well to delete such columns in the
declaration. If the purpose of the declaration is to deny the maternity
leave and benefits to a lady candidate who is pregnant at the time of
entering the service (the legality of which we express no opinion since not
challenged), the Corporation could subject her to medical examination F
including the pregnancy test.
In the circumstances the interim order already issued is made
absolute.We however, direct that the appellant is not entitled to the salary
from the date of discharge till her reinstatement. With this direction the
appeal stands disposed of but no order as to costs. G
• S.B. Appeal· allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "probation"Sign in to search