Allahabad High Court: Fourth Child, No Maternity Leave Rule Upheld

• The Allahabad High Court denied maternity leave for a woman government employee's fourth child, upholding a Uttar Pradesh service rule.
• The rule states that employees with two or more living children cannot claim maternity leave for subsequent children, even if they did not use leave for earlier births.
• Petitioner Smt. Sashi Kumari sought six months of leave, arguing she had not taken leave for her first three children, but the court dismissed her plea.
• The court relied on the Financial Handbook, which explicitly governs maternity leave for state government employees.
• The court also issued directives regarding proper document filing, noting errors in typed copies submitted in the petition.

The court explicitly stated that the Uttar Pradesh service rules preclude maternity leave for a woman government employee who already has two or more living children, irrespective of whether she had previously availed such leave for her earlier offspring.

The Allahabad High Court has affirmed a Uttar Pradesh service rule that denies maternity leave to government employees who already have two or more living children, even if they had not previously utilized maternity benefits for their earlier offspring. This significant ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Smt. Sashi Kumari, a woman government employee, who sought six months of maternity leave for her fourth child.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, presiding over the bench, dismissed Kumari's plea, thereby upholding an earlier order dated June 19, 2026, which had rejected her claim. The court's decision was rooted in the specific provisions outlined in the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4, Chapter 10, which governs maternity leave for government employees within the state of Uttar Pradesh. The core of the judgment reinforces the state's policy on family size and employee benefits.

Smt. Sashi Kumari's counsel contended that the rejection of her maternity leave request was arbitrary, arguing that she had not availed any maternity leave for the births of her first three children. Consequently, her counsel submitted that she was seeking this benefit for the very first time for her fourth child, implying that the spirit of the leave provision should apply. She had specifically requested a directive for the authorities to grant her the full six months of maternity leave.

However, the State vigorously opposed Kumari's petition, relying heavily on the established service rules. The State's argument centered on the clear language of the Financial Handbook, which explicitly details the conditions under which maternity leave can be granted or denied. This legal framework, according to the State, directly precluded Kumari's eligibility for leave given her existing family structure.

The Uttar Pradesh service rules, as presented before the court, stipulate that maternity leave may be granted to permanent or temporary women government servants for a period of 180 days for childbirth. Crucially, these rules include a specific condition: if a woman government servant already has two or more living children, she cannot be granted maternity leave for any subsequent child. This prohibition applies even if she would otherwise be entitled to such leave based on other criteria.

The court noted that the petitioner's argument — that she had not taken maternity leave for her first three children — did not alter her position under these rules. The judgment clarified that the Financial Handbook's provision barring maternity leave for those with two or more living children is absolute in this context. Separately, the rules do provide for maternity leave in cases of miscarriage, including those accompanied by abortion, allowing for up to six weeks on each occasion, subject to prescribed conditions and a certificate from an authorized medical practitioner.

The Allahabad High Court ultimately accepted the State's interpretation of the service rules, finding no grounds to interfere with the initial order that rejected Smt. Sashi Kumari's claim. Justice Chauhan explicitly stated, "No interference is required by this Court," leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. This ruling firmly upholds the state's policy regarding maternity leave for a fourth child, aligning with the existing service regulations.

Beyond the substantive ruling, the court also raised a procedural concern regarding the filing of the writ petition. It observed that the petition contained only typed copies of documents rather than photocopies of the originals, and these typed copies included several errors. The court noted that this made it difficult to decide on the issues, directing the Reporting Section to raise objections in similar future cases and ensure that writ petitions are filed with proper photocopies of annexed documents. A copy of the order was further directed to be placed before the Registrar General for necessary instructions to the Reporting Section.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law