Delhi High Court To Examine Validity Of Civil Services Rule Restricting Maternity Leave Based On Number Of Surviving Children
The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a plea filed by a woman government employee challenging the vires of Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which provides for maternity leave to a female government servant with less than two surviving children.A Division Bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain was hearing a plea filed by Dr. Geeta Rani,...
The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a plea filed by a woman government employee challenging the vires of Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which provides for maternity leave to a female government servant with less than two surviving children.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain was hearing a plea filed by Dr. Geeta Rani, who contended that she was wrongly denied maternity leave in connection with her second pregnancy.
The woman had delivered twins from her first pregnancy in 2024. During her second pregnancy, she applied for maternity leave, which was rejected by the authorities by relying upon Rule 43 of the CCS Rules.
Under Rule 43(1), a female government servant with less than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave for 180 days. The Rule further provides that maternity leave may be granted in specified circumstances irrespective of the number of surviving children, including miscarriage or abortion.
The woman's counsel relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., to contend that maternity leave for the third child had been wrongly denied.
The Bench noted that the facts in K. Umadevi case were materially different as in that case, the employee had two biological children from an earlier marriage, prior to entering government service, and subsequently had her first child from her subsisting marriage after entering service.
The Bench also considered the decision of the Madras High Court in Union of India v. M. Asiya Begum relied upon by the authorities in which the employee had delivered twins and subsequently had a third child.
The Court observed that the Madras High Court ruling, while allowing the appeal, had not considered that entitlement under Rule 43 is not based on the number of deliveries, but on the number of surviving children at the time maternity leave is applied for.
Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioner sought time to assist the Court on the challenge to the vires of Rule 43 of the CCS Rules.
The matter is now listed for further hearing on October 06
Title: DR. GEETA RANI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS