JUDGMENT :

[J.J. Munir, J.]

1. The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher at the Prathmik Vidyalaya, Uncha (Composit), Shamshabad, District - Agra, impugns an order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the Basic Education Officer, Development Block, Shamshabad, District - Agra, refusing to sanction her maternity leave.

2. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher, working with the Prathmik Vidyalaya Uncha (Composit), Shamshabad, Agra. The Institution aforesaid is established and maintained by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board. The petitioner functions under the overall supervision and control of the Basic Education Officer, Agra and under the immediate control of the Headmaster, Prathmik Vidyalaya Uncha (Composit), Shamshabad, Agra. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on 29.6.2011 and joined services w.e.f. 1.7.2011. It is common ground between parties that at the time of entry into service, the petitioner was a married woman. Her service record shows that a son was born to her on August the 19th, 2007 and a daughter on September the 15th, 2011. Thus, a daughter was born to the petitioner soon after she joined service on July the 1st, 2011. It is perhaps for the said reason that the current leave balance account of the petitioner, that has been annexed as Annexure S.A.1 to the supplementary-affidavit dated 18.6.2021, shows that she has availed 180 days of maternity leave, out of the total admissible of 540, leaving a balance of 360 days in the category. Though not very explicitly said by the petitioner, the availed maternity leave would relate to the second child born to the petitioner soon after she joined service.

3. The petitioner made an application for grant of maternity leave, submitting it online on November the 10th, 2020. This application of the petitioner's has come to be rejected by the order impugned dated 20.11.2020, passed by the Basic Education Officer, Shamshabad, Agra, employing words that express reason for the rejection, that say : ''Leave applied for third child without any specific reason''. It is this order which the petitioner seeks to assail by means of the present petition.

4. Parties have exchanged pleadings.

5. Heard Mr. Indra Dev Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.N. Maurya, the learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.V. Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

6. Mr. Indra Dev Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the right to maternity leave flows from a Central Statute, that is to say, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended by Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. The said Act shall hereinafter be referred to as the ''Maternity Act''. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Maternity Act has increased the maternity leave from eight weeks to twenty-two weeks. There is no restriction envisaged in the Act last mentioned regarding the count of children, on whose birth, sanction of maternity leave would depend. It is further pointed out, on the strength of the supplementary-affidavit on behalf of the petitioner, that though the child now born is the third child, this is the second instance that the petitioner had applied for maternity leave. It is emphasized by Mr. Indra Dev, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has not applied for maternity leave thrice. She has applied twice. The first has been granted, and the second, the present one, refused. It is refused on the ground that the child, in relation to whose birth the maternity leave is sought, is her third child, and no particular or specific reason has been pointed out why maternity leave ought not to be granted on the birth of a third child. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents seek to support the impugned order before this Court by falling back on the provisions of Rule 153 (1) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, Vol. II Part II to IV of the Financia