In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a female government employee having two or more living children is not entitled to maternity leave under the applicable service rules, even if she is seeking the benefit for the first time for a particular delivery.
The order was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while hearing a petition filed by Shashi Kumari, who had challenged an order dated June 19, 2026, rejecting her application for maternity leave in connection with the birth of her fourth child.
The petitioner had also sought a direction to the authorities to grant her six months’ maternity leave.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that she had not availed maternity leave during the births of her first three children. It was contended that since she was seeking the benefit for the first time for her fourth delivery, the denial of leave was arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
Opposing the plea, the State’s Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner’s claim was contrary to the provisions governing maternity leave for government servants.
Referring to the Financial Handbook (Volume II, Parts 2 to 4, Chapter 10), the Court noted that maternity leave may be granted for 180 days from the date of delivery. The rules further provide that such leave may be sanctioned again only after two years have elapsed from the expiry of the previously sanctioned maternity leave.
The Court emphasized that the governing rules clearly stipulate that maternity leave cannot be granted to a female government servant who has two or more living children, irrespective of whether she has availed the benefit earlier.
The Bench also observed that a separate provision exists for leave in cases of miscarriage. Under those rules, a woman employee may be granted six weeks of leave, and the earlier restriction limiting the benefit to three instances had already been removed through a government notification issued in 1990.
During the proceedings, the Court took note of procedural deficiencies in the petition. It found that photocopies of original documents had not been filed and that only typed copies containing typographical errors were placed on record, making it difficult for the Court to properly appreciate the facts of the case.
Accordingly, the Court directed the reporting section to ensure that proper photocopies of original documents are attached with petitions in future. It further ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Registrar General for necessary action. The petition was consequently dismissed.
