Allahabad High Court rejects Shashi Kumari's maternity leave plea for fourth child under service rules

A Clear-Cut Rejection

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by government employee Shashi Kumari, who sought six months of maternity leave for the birth of her fourth child. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, sitting on a single bench, found no grounds to interfere with the authorities' rejection of her claim, citing clear provisions of the Financial Handbook that bar maternity leave for women with two or more living children.

The Dispute Unfolds

Kumari, a state government employee, had challenged an order dated June 19, 2026, passed by the Block Education Officer, Sambhal (Bheem Nagar), which rejected her claim for maternity leave for her fourth child. She also sought a direction from the court to compel the authorities to grant her the six-month leave entitlement.

Petitioner's Stand

Kumari's counsel argued that she had not availed maternity leave on the births of her first three children. Since she was seeking the benefit for the first time, her counsel contended that denying the leave was " arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law ."

State's Counter-Arguments

The State, represented by Additional Chief Standing Counsel Anuradha Sundaram , firmly opposed the petition. Relying on the Financial Handbook's Volume II - Part 2 to 4 (Chapter-10) , the State submitted that maternity leave cannot be granted to a woman government servant with two or more living children. The relevant provision states: " यदि किसी महिला सरकारी सेवक के दो या अधिक जीवित बच्चे हो तो उसे प्रसूति अवकाश स्वीकृत नहीं किया जा सकता " (If a woman government servant has two or more living children, she cannot be granted maternity leave, even if otherwise due).

Additionally, the State counsel pointed to an averment in Kumari's own petition suggesting she had already availed maternity leave, further undermining her claim.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Chauhan found no merit in the petition. "In view of the above, no interference is required by this Court," she observed, before dismissing the writ petition .

The court also flagged a procedural concern, noting that the petition had been filed with only typed copies of documents rather than photostat copies of the originals. "This Court finds that the writ petition has been filed annexing only the typed copies of the documents, not placing the photostat copies of the original documents which makes it difficult for the Court to decide on the issues as the typed copies contain certain typing errors," the judgment noted.

Broader Context

The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended in 2017, provides 26 weeks of paid maternity leave for a woman with fewer than two surviving children, and 12 weeks for a woman with two or more surviving children. However, government employees may also be governed by separate service rules, which can affect their entitlement. In this case, the Financial Handbook's provisions took precedence, barring maternity leave entirely for a fourth child.

Implications

The ruling reinforces that government employees governed by the Financial Handbook cannot claim maternity leave for a fourth child, regardless of whether they availed the benefit for earlier births. The court also directed the Reporting Section to raise objections regarding the filing of photostat copies of original documents and ordered that a copy of the order be placed before the Registrar General for necessary directions.