Maternity Leave For Second Child Can't Be Denied For Want Of Two-Year Gap Under UP Financial Handbook: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that maternity leave for a second child cannot be refused on the ground that two years have not elapsed since the earlier spell of such leave was granted. It held that the Code on Social Security, 2020 prevails over the rules contained in the U.P. Financial Handbook.Section 161 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 provides that the Code shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the Code came into force.Rule 153(1) of Chapter XIII of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, contained in the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4, read with the Government Order dated 8th December 2008, was relied upon by the State to deny a second spell of maternity leave within two years of the last one.Justice Siddharth Nandan held,“… that The Code, 2020, does not contain any stipulation prescribing a time gap between the grant of maternity benefits for the first and second child, as provided under Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook. On the contrary, Section 161 of the Code, 2020, categorically provides that, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, whether made before or after the coming into force of the said Code, the provisions of the Code shall prevail. Consequently, the stipulation contained in the Government Order dated 08.12.2008 and Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook cannot be permitted to override or curtail the benefits conferred under the Code, 2020.”Both petitioners are regularly appointed Staff Nurses/Nursing Officers in the Department of Medical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Each had been granted 180 days' maternity leave in 2024.On conceiving a second time, both applied for 180 days' leave in 2026. Both applications were rejected by respondent No. 3 on the ground that two years had not passed since the earlier spell of maternity leave, in terms of the Government Order dated 8th December 2008 and Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook.Petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the rejection orders and a direction to sanction the leave with consequential service benefits.It was argued for the petitioners that the provisions of the Financial Handbook were framed by the Governor under Section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and continue in force by virtue of Article 313 of the Constitution, and that they are at best executive instructions which must yield to a parliamentary enactment. It was further argued that the State had itself adopted the Central Government's policy on maternity leave and child care leave by Government Order dated 11.04.2011.Noting Articles 38, 39, 42, 43 and 15 of the Constitution of India, the Court observed that the grant of maternity benefits, the protection of the health and strength of workers and the maintenance of a decent standard of life amount to a constitutional mandate and an obligation cast upon the State.“The provisions of the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4, were framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and continue to remain in force by virtue of the provisions contained in Article 313 of the Constitution of India. It is no longer res integra that the nature of the said Rules contained in the Financial Handbook is, at best, is that of executive instructions; and by no stretch of imagination, can they be brought within the category of an “enactment” made by the legislature.”The Court observed that the Code on Social Security, 2020 was enacted by Parliament under Entry 24 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. It held that a State law overriding it would require the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, which was not the position here.It held,“…the provisions of The Code, 2020 shall prevail over any executive instructions, including Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part 2 to 4, which has also been read down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Anupam Yadav (supra) in relation to the grant of maternity benefits for the second pregnancy. The said benefits, therefore, shall be governed by the provisions of the Code, 2020; which does not put any embargo, by way of a timeline, between two pregnancies.”Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned rejection orders and directed that if the petitioners file fresh applications for the benefits available under the Code, 2020, a decision be taken on them in the light of the law laid down. The writ petition was allowed.Case Title: Smt Shikha Yadav and another v. State of U.P. and 2 othersClick Here To Read/Download Order

Maternity Leave For Second Child Can't Be Denied For Want Of Two-Year Gap Under UP Financial Handbook: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Maternity Leave For Second Child Can't Be Denied For Want Of Two-Year Gap Under UP Financial Handbook: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers