In a landmark decision safeguarding the rights of working women during pregnancy, the Rajasthan High Court condemned the state’s decision to post a 30-week pregnant Nursing Officer, Jyoti Parmar, 500 kilometers away from her residence. The court termed the action a "mechanical exercise of power" that disregarded her health, dignity, and constitutional rights.
Background
Jyoti Parmar, a 33-year-old resident of Dungarpur, had secured the position of Nursing Officer after competing against thousands nationwide. However, her appointment faced jeopardy when she was directed to join duty in Barmer district by January 24, 2025—despite being in her third trimester of pregnancy. Her medical report (dated November 28, 2024) confirmed her advanced stage, making relocation hazardous.
Read Also - Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Action to Tackle Snakebite Crisis, Ensure Anti-Venom Access
Parmar had submitted 100 location preferences within the Udaipur division, where vacancies existed. Instead, she was assigned Barmer, a district she never opted for. The joining order warned that failure to report would result in automatic cancellation of her appointment, leaving her torn between her career and maternal health.
Justice Arun Monga, presiding over the case, criticized the state’s “lack of empathy” and “oppressive misuse of power.” Highlighting the state’s duty to act as a “model employer” and “virtuous litigant,” the judge observed:
“Directing a heavily pregnant woman to relocate 500 km away, with no evidence of vacancy shortages in her preferred locations, reflects arbitrariness and non-application of mind. It violates her Right to Livelihood and Health under Article 21.”
The court noted that forcing Parmar to travel such a distance posed severe health risks, violated safe working conditions, and ignored international standards protecting pregnant employees.
Key Legal Arguments
- Petitioner’s Stand: Parmar’s counsel, Mr. Ripudaman Singh, argued that the posting was “non-transparent” and ignored her medical constraints. He emphasized her willingness to serve in Udaipur, where vacancies were available.
- State’s Defense: The respondents, represented by Mr. Tanuj Jain, contended that postings are administrative decisions and courts should not interfere.
Rejecting this, Justice Monga stressed that “administrative exigency cannot override fundamental rights.”
The court directed the State Institute of Health and Family Welfare to:
- Reassign Parmar to any location within Udaipur division within 30 days.
- Extend her joining deadline until the reassignment is finalized.
- Refrain from taking adverse actions against her during this period.
Read Also - Rajasthan High Court: Pending Criminal Cases Cannot Bar Government Appointments
This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s role in protecting women’s workplace rights during pregnancy. It sets a precedent against arbitrary postings and underscores the state’s obligation to balance administrative needs with compassion.
“The state’s actions were not just unlawful but inhumane. Sensitivity towards maternal health is not a privilege—it’s a right,” Justice Monga remarked.
For detailed insights, refer to the judgment: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1422/2025, High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur
