"Maternity Leave Is Constitutional Right, Not State Charity": J&K&L High Court Quashes Order Denying Salary To Doctors

Striking down a communication denying pay and allowances to Senior Resident Doctors during maternity leave, the Court observed that once the Government itself extends maternity leave under its rules, it cannot deprive women of their salary by resorting to an executive clarification inconsistent with those very rules.

Quashing the impugned communication, the Court held that the right to receive full emoluments during maternity leave is an inseparable consequence of the right to maternity leave itself, and cannot be defeated by drawing distinctions based on the tenure-based nature of employment. The Court observed,

"...In a glaring departure from its character as a compassionate welfare State, the respondents have sought to penalize the petitioners for the foundational human experience of motherhood...Maternity leave cannot be reduced to a matter of state charity; it is an unassailable constitutional right anchored in the dignity of women”

Justice Rajnesh Oswal delivered the judgment while allowing a writ petition filed by Dr. Sonakshi Gupta and others, who challenged a communication issued by the Health and Medical Education Department denying pay and allowances to Senior Residents/Tutors during maternity leave on the ground that they remained "out of assignment."

The petitioners were engaged as Senior Residents/Tutors had availed maternity leave in accordance with the norms of the National Medical Commission and the National Board of Examinations. The Government Order expressly provided that female Senior Residents/Tutors would be entitled to maternity leave as per the Government rules and regulations, while simultaneously extending the tenure of residency by the corresponding period of leave.

Despite the Government Order, the petitioners' salaries were withheld solely on the strength of a subsequent communication dated 14 October 2025, issued on the basis of advice tendered by the Finance Department.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the High Court contending that the executive communication nullified the statutory entitlement flowing from the Government Order and Rule 41(1) of the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979, which grants female employees maternity leave with full leave salary equivalent to their last drawn pay.

The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the petitioners did not hold regular civil posts and the extension of tenure contemplated by the Government Order was merely an academic arrangement to ensure completion of the mandatory residency period and did not entitle the petitioners to salary during the period they remained away from duty.

Court's Observations:

Rejecting the stand of the respondents, the Court held that Government Order dated 08 July 2024 unequivocally extended maternity leave to Senior Residents/Tutors "as per the Government rules and regulations." Once such incorporation had been made, Rule 41(1) of the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules automatically became applicable, entitling the petitioners to maternity leave with full leave salary, it opined.

The Court observed that the subsequent communication could not override or dilute the rights conferred by the Government Order. It held that what was described as a "clarification" was, in substance, an impermissible administrative attempt to curtail a statutory and constitutional entitlement.

Expressing strong disapproval of the Finance Department's approach, the Court observed,

"During the currency of order dated 08.07.2024, the communication dated 14.10.2025 cannot be termed as a 'clarification,' but a blatant administrative overreach. It is evident that the Finance Department, in its anxiety to prune public spending, has lost sight of constitutional bounds."

The Court further held that denying salary to women merely because they were appointed on tenure basis amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. It observed that the biological realities of motherhood remain identical irrespective of the nature of employment and that a welfare State cannot discriminate between categories of women employees while extending maternity benefits.

Justice Oswal relied extensively upon the Division Bench judgment in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Tanu Gupta, which had held that a woman employee cannot be placed at a financial disadvantage merely because she avails maternity leave. The Court also referred to multiple Supreme Court's decisions reiterating that maternity benefits constitute an integral facet of constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality and social justice.

The Court further held that once maternity leave itself stood recognised under the Government Order, the corresponding entitlement to full salary became an "organic corollary" of that right and could not be defeated through an executive fiat denying pay during the leave period.

Holding the impugned communication to be arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the Government Order dated 08 July 2024 as well as the constitutional principles governing maternity benefits, the High Court quashed the communication dated 14 October 2025 insofar as it denied pay and allowances during maternity leave.

The Court directed the respondents to release full pay and allowances to the petitioners for the period of maternity leave as well as for the corresponding extended period of residency occasioned by such leave.

Case Title: Dr. Sonakshi Gupta & Ors. v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 303

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment