Rajasthan HC Quashes Transfer Order of Pregnant Employee

Employment Law Newsletter – Rajasthan HC Quashes Transfer Order of Pregnant Employee: February 2025

  • Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:5472
  • Court: Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
  • Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arun Monga
  • Order Date: January 28, 2025
  • Case Title: Sulochana v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Overview

In a noteworthy ruling on maternity rights, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the transfer of a pregnant employee in her eighth month of pregnancy, emphasizing employer responsibility under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (“MB Act”) and condemning the bureaucratic apathy that led to her forced litigation.

The petitioner, a nursing officer, challenged her transfer from Sub-District Hospital, Fatehpur (Sikar) to Mathuradas Mathur Hospital, Jodhpur—a distance of 320 km—on the grounds that it was medically unsafe and in violation of employment laws.

Legal Issues Raised

  • Violation of Maternity Protection Laws: The transfer order disregarded Section 4(3) of the MB Act which prohibits assigning arduous work or duties that could endanger a pregnant woman’s health.
  • Jurisdictional Overreach: The transfer was in contravention of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, as the authority issuing the transfer lacked jurisdiction.
  • Breach of Fundamental Rights: The transfer threatened the petitioner’s right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution by making it unreasonably difficult for her to continue working.

Arguments by the Parties

 Petitioner’s Contentions:

  1. Illegal Transfer: The Medical and Health Department lacked jurisdiction to issue the transfer order under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules.
  2. Health & Safety Violation: The transfer jeopardized her health and that of the unborn child, contravening the MB Act.
  3. Humanitarian Concerns: Traveling 320 km in late-stage pregnancy was unsafe, requiring a change in medical care providers and undue hardship for her family.

Respondents’ Defence:

  1. Administrative Exigencies: Transfer is an inherent condition of government service, and the petitioner had no vested right to choose her posting.
  2. No Special Consideration: No statutory exemption prevents pregnant employees from being transferred.

Judicial Findings and Observations

The Court took strong exception to the employer’s lack of sensitivity and held that the transfer order was:

  • Arbitrary and Unreasonable: The transfer ignored medical and humanitarian considerations, failing the test of fairness and proportionality.
  • Contrary to Maternity Protection Laws: Section 4(3) of the MB Act prohibits employers from assigning work that may interfere with pregnancy or foetal development. The Court reaffirmed that forced relocation of a heavily pregnant employee qualifies as such interference.
  • A Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Court noted that unreasonable conditions on employment infringe upon the Right to Livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • Employer’s Duty of Care: The Court emphasized that the employer must act as a model employer, ensuring that pregnant employees are not subjected to undue hardship.

Final Order

  • The transfer order was quashed.
  • The employer was directed to either retain the petitioner in her current posting or assign an alternative posting within a reasonable distance in Sikar.
  • The employer was ordered to sensitize officers on maternity protection laws.

Implications for Employers & HR Policies

  • Reinforces employer obligations under the MB Act.
  • Affirms that transfer orders impacting maternal health must be assessed for legal validity and fairness.
  • Sets a precedent that institutional rigidity cannot override fundamental rights.
  • Mandates employers to consider humanitarian factors in HR decisions.

Cited Legal Precedents and Statutory Provisions

  1. Jyoti Parmar v. State Institute of Health & Family Welfare & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1422/2025, decided on 23.01.2025): Held that compelling a pregnant employee to relocate over 500 km was arbitrary and violated Article 21.
  2. Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Section 4(3)): Prohibits employers from assigning work that may endanger the health of a pregnant employee or the foetus
  3. Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the Right to Livelihood, which includes protection from arbitrary employment decisions that threaten well-being.

Related Posts