##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

WRIT - A No. - 3721 of 2026

Manisha Yadav .....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Edu. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chinmay Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 18 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

The written instructions produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the State are taken on record.

By this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 04.04.2026 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby maternity leave sought by the petitioner has been rejected. The impugned order dated

04.04.2026 contained in Annexure No. 1 is extracted hereinunder:-

"

मनीषा यादव [1535740), किन्ष सहायक, राजकीय पॉिलटिेक्नक जमिुनया डीह हरख बाराबकं ी बाराबंकी को अवकाश आवेदन संख्या 2901211 के ्वम म ें िदनाक 06/04/2026 से 02/10/2026 तक 180 िदन का

मातृत्व अवकाश िनम्निलिखत िटप्पणी/िटप्पिणयों के साथ अस्वीकृत िकया जाता ह।ै

IV िटप्पणीः अनुमन्य नहीं। आविेदत अवकाश िव्तीयहस्तपुिस्तका खण्डदोभागाासे स0िन0153 (1) म ें्ऺावधानके अनुसार स्वीकृत करने की इजाजत नहीं देता आप को िनयमानुसार अन्य अनुमन्यअवकाश यिदआप ्षाराआविेदत

िकया जाता ह"ैं

Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgments rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Anupam Yadav & Ors versus State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2022(11) ADJ 669, Anshu Rani Versus State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2019) 3 UPLBEC 1741 and Satakshi Mishra versus State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2022(10) ADJ

333.

A perusal of aforesaid judgments make it evident that the aforesaid issue has

WRIA No. 3721 of 2026

2

already been decided by Coordinate Benches of this Court.

In the case of Anupam Yadav (supra) the following has been held as under:-

"24. Thus the State of U.P. in exercise of powers granted under Section 28 has already issued Government Order dated 8.12.2008 and 24.3.2009 adopting the provisions of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 for the benefit of its employees. Further, the modifications made by the Central Government have also been adopted by the State of U.P. in its Government Order dated 11.4.2011 reproduced hereinabove. Once the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 has been adopted by the State of U.P. as held by this Court then 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 and would in any case

be subsidiary to the legislation made by the Parliament.

25. In conclusion it can safely be said that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 has been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of powers under Entry 24 in List-III of the Seventh schedule of the Constitution of India and to secure the goals stated in Articles 38, 39, 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India and also to give effect to the provisions contained in Article 15 (3) of the Constitution. The provisions of Financial Handbook are merely executive instructions and would be subsidiary to the Act of the Parliament and in case of any inconsistency, the statutory enactment framed by the Parliament would prevail and hence, the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 would prevail over the provisions of the Financial Handbook and consequently, the provisions of Rule 153 (1) of the Financial Handbook Volume II to IV are read down with regard to the admissibility of leave to a women with regard to second pregnancy which would be governed by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and not Rule 153 (1) of the Financial Handbook Volume II to IV. The State Government already having adopted the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as recorded by the Division Bench of this Court and followed by the Single Bench in the case of Anshu Rani versus State of U.P. passed in Writ-A No. 3486 of 2019, it is clear that the provisions of the Maternity

Benef