Couples must choose between job ambitions and family life at the crossroads, is upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through the learned Judge JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN AND SATYEN VAIDYA, in the case ofLata Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021 SCC OnLine HP 8908).
Brief facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse at IGMC Shimla; however, she got married in 2016 previous to joining the respondents’ Department, and her spouse is employed by a private firm in Delhi. Since the birth of her daughter Mrinali Thakur, the petitioner has never been able to enjoy the company of her daughter except for the period of maternity leave and any other kind of duly sanctioned leave, and since the nature of the petitioner’s job has been such that she hardly spares time for her child, she could not afford to take a leave of absence.
The Court noted that mandamus is a public remedy that is available when a public entity fails to carry out a legal obligation. In other words, a writ of mandamus is issued against an individual who has a legal obligation to fulfil but has failed or refused to do so. The mere fact that a representation has been filed with the respondents does not provide a basis for the petitioner to maintain the immediate petition, since the respondents have no commensurate obligation to decide the representation. While choosing a vocation and particular service, the petitioner was fully aware that she could not be transferred to the station where her husband is stationed in a private employment in Delhi, and so was necessary to be ready to endure such hardships.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI