Imposing Unreasonable Conditions On Pregnant Employee Infringes Her Right To Livelihood: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan Court was considering a Writ-Petition filed by a woman employee seeking an extension of her joining date to safeguard both her career and her family’s future.

The Rajasthan High Court while granting relief to a woman in her third trimester observed that imposing unreasonable conditions on pregnant employee that threaten her employment infringes on her Right to Livelihood enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court was considering a Writ-Petition filed by a woman employee seeking an extension of her joining date to safeguard both her career and her family’s future.
The single-bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, "I am of the view that, by imposing such unreasonable conditions that threaten her employment if she is unable to comply due to legitimate personal and medical reasons, it infringes on petitioner’s Right to Livelihood enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Ripudaman Singh while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Tanuj Jain.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner had sought an extension of her joining date citing her inability to join duty within the stipulated time, owing to the advanced stage of her pregnancy(third trimester). Since Respondents declined to do the needful, she now faces the risk of losing her hard-earned job, despite successfully competing against thousands of candidates nationwide to secure the position of Nursing Officer.
Dilemma of the Petitioner is owing to the condition imposed in the posting/ joining order directing her join duty failing which, her appointment on the post in question shall be automatically cancelled.
Counsel for the Petitioner argued that, given her current condition, the Petitioner had submitted about 100 preferences within the Udaipur division where vacancies are available and she could be accommodated. However, her current posting is over 500 kilometers away from her residence, and she had never opted for the same. It was nothing but arbitrariness and non application of mind by the competent authority, he contended.
Reasoning By Court
The Court at the outset noted that the extenuating circumstances of the petitioner have been given complete short shrift by directing her to join services on a specific date at a place 500 kms.
"Same is nothing but reflective of lack of empathy and compassion on the part of respondents and is highly arbitrary and mechanical exercise or non-exercise of mind, as the case may be......State is not only supposed to act as a model employer, but also as a virtuous litigant. Whereas, in the instant case, the approach adopted by the respondents instead is rather obstructive and oppressive in nature and a complete misuse of dominant status as an employer, apart from abuse of power, to say the least," the Court observed.
The Court took exception to the fact that the Authorities ignored 100 preferences, submitted by the Petitioner for postings within the Udaipur division knowing that she in third trimester of her maternity.
"There is no indication that suitable vacancies in the Udaipur division, as per her preferences, were unavailable. Forcing her to relocate that far in her current condition poses serious health risks, violates her right to health and against the very basic principles of being humane, and disregards her right to safe working conditions during pregnancy and demonstrative of lack of sensitivity," the Court said.
The Petition was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Jyoti Parmar vs. State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare (2025:RJ-JD:4860)
Click here to read/ download Order