JUDGMENT :

1. These writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts and thus are being decided together by a common order. The writ petitioners, who are working as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools managed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Department, have approached this Court assailing the orders passed by the competent authority / District Basic Education Officer whereby and whereunder the sanction of maternity leave for 180 days has been turned down by stating that the same is not admissible/ or on the ground that the period of 2 years have not elapsed from the date of the expiry of the last maternity leave granted to them under the proviso to Rule 153 (I) of Chapter XIII of the U.P. Fundamental Rules in Financial Handbook Volume-II, Part 2 to 4.

2. In order to adjudicate the legal issue involved the facts of writ petition No. 9535 of 2022 are being considered.

3. The writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher at Primary School Dhakatal Mahewa District Etawah vide appointment letter dated 28.6.2016. The petitioner gave birth to a male child on 4.1.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner again became pregnant and applied for maternity leave online on 17.6.2022. The online maternity leave application of the petitioner has been turned down on the ground “not admissible” by the impugned order dated 23.6.2022. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that rejection of the maternity leave to the petitioner by the impugned order is patently illegal as no reasons whatsoever has been disclosed by the District Basic Education Officer in turning down the maternity leave to the petitioner. He submits that the maternity leave is the right of a women employee during pregnancy and cannot be turned down in the manner as has been done by the respondents. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the co-ordinate Bench dated 11.12.2019 passed in Service Single No. 32394 of 2019 (Smt. Richa Shukla Versus State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary Basic Education Lko & others) to submit that maternity leave to the petitioner therein was refused by orders dated 13.11.2019 and 27.11.2019. The Court proceeded to quash the orders dated 13.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 4 therein to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave. Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that petitioner is equally circumstanced and is also entitled to the relief as extended to the petitioner of Service Single No. 32394 of 2019.

4. Shri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel, in opposition, to the writ petition submits that the claim of the writ petitioner for maternity leave has been turned down as the same is not admissible on the ground that period of two years has not elapsed from the date of expiry of the last maternity leave granted to the petitioner under the proviso of Rule 153 (1) of Chapter XIII of U.P. Fundamental Rules in Financial Handbook Volume-II, Part 2 to 4. He further submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has been settled by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Renu Chaudhary Versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2022 (2) ADJ 14 wherein the Court has proceeded to hold that the petitioner therein who is an Assistant Teacher employed with an Institution established and maintained by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board is governed by the Service Rules applicable to teachers of Primary Schools maintained by the Board and other Rules including rules that apply regarding grant of leave. An employee of the Institution run and managed by the U.P. Basic Education Board is not an employee of an establishment to which the Maternity Act applies. There is no conflict between the second proviso to Rule 153 of the Fundamental Rules and the Maternity Act which does not apply to the establishment of the Basic Education Board or the schools maintained by it. The restrict