Back
No Gap, No Problem: Allahabad HC Greenlights Second Maternity Leave in Quick Succession
In a boost for working mothers in Uttar Pradesh government service, the 's Lucknow Bench has ruled that there's no two-year waiting period required between maternity leaves. Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar quashed the rejection of junior assistant Manisha Yadav's plea for 180 days of maternity leave starting , directing authorities to grant it immediately with full benefits.
This single-judge decision, delivered on , in Manisha Yadav vs State of U.P. & Anr. (WRIA No. 3721 of 2026), prioritizes the , over restrictive state service rules.
From Rejection Slip to High Court Showdown
Manisha Yadav, a junior assistant at in Barabanki, applied for maternity leave from April 6 to —her second such request after giving birth to a son in . Her application was swiftly denied on , by the institute principal, citing . The order bluntly stated the leave was "अनुमन्य नहीं" (not admissible) due to insufficient gap from her prior maternity period.
Yadav challenged this in the High Court, arguing the denial violated her statutory rights under the Maternity Benefit Act, a central law adopted by the UP government via orders in 2008, 2009, and 2011.
Petitioner's Rights vs State's Rulebook
Yadav's counsel, , leaned heavily on prior rulings, urging the court to enforce the Act's protections for women employees. The plea highlighted that the Financial Handbook's proviso—barring a second maternity leave if less than two years separate the end of the first and start of the second—was mere executive instruction, subordinate to parliamentary law.
The State Standing Counsel countered by defending Rule 153(1), insisting the two-year gap was mandatory for government staff, including in technical education departments. They produced written instructions reinforcing the handbook's stance, portraying Yadav's request as non-compliant.
Precedents Pave the Way for Parity
Justice Pawar meticulously reviewed coordinate bench decisions, finding the issue "already... decided." In Anupam Yadav & Ors vs State of U.P. (2022(11) ADJ 669), the court held the Maternity Benefit Act overrides the Financial Handbook:
"The provisions of thewould prevail over the provisions of the Financial Handbook... Rule 153 (1) of the Financial Handbook Volume II to IV arewith regard to the admissibility of leave to a woman with regard to second pregnancy which would be governed by the."
Echoing this were Anshu Rani vs State of U.P. (2019) 3 UPLBEC 1741) and Satakshi Mishra vs State of U.P. (2022(10) ADJ 333), both affirming no bar on second leaves within two years. The bench emphasized Section 27 of the Act, which nullifies inconsistent service contracts, and the State's own adoption of the law to fulfill constitutional directives under .
News reports noted similar relief in Yadav's case, aligning with the court's view that the Act's beneficial nature demands precedence.
Key Observations from the Bench
The judgment distilled the core principle through pointed observations:
-
On the Act's Supremacy :
"Once the provisions of the
has been adopted by the State of U.P... the said Act of 1961 would apply with full force irrespective of the provisions contained in the Financial Handbook which is merely an executive instruction."
-
No Gap Restriction :
"In the case of Anupam Yadav (supra)... there is no bar for an employee in seeking a Second Maternity benefit within a period of two years from the grant of the first maternity benefit."
-
Overriding Mandate :
"Section 27 of the 1961 Act provides that it is the 1961 Act which would be applicable notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law or contract of service."
These quotes underscore the judgment's clarity on statutory hierarchy.
Mandate for Mothers: Leave Granted, Precedent Set
The court allowed the petition at the admission stage, quashing the April 4 order:
"Accordingly, the impugned order datedpassed by respondent No. 2... is hereby quashed. Ais issued commanding respondent No. 2 to sanction maternity leave to the petitioner w.e.f.toforthwith, along with all consequential service benefits."
This ruling reinforces protections for UP public sector women, potentially easing approvals for successive maternity leaves amid rising dual-career families. It signals to administrators: statutory rights trump handbook hurdles, ensuring maternity benefits flow without artificial delays.
