##PAGE1##

1

CGHC010263992026 2026:CGHC:38029-DB Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHATIWARI NAFR TIWARI Date:

2026.08.25

17:22:12 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WA No. 795 of 2026

Food Corporation Of India Through Divisional Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Divisional Office Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha

Road, Kapa Post - Pandri, District - Raipur (C.G.)

... Appellant versus

Mrs. Kiran Goutam Sharma W/o Goutam Sharma, Aged About 44 Years Occupation Assistant Grade- I I (A/cs.) Food Corporation Of India,

District Office, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

25.08.2026

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel for the appellant on I.A.

No.04/2026 i.e., application seeking condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal for a period of 10 days. Also heard Ms. Smita Jha,

learned counsel for the respondent.

2

2. For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No.04/2026, the delay stands

condoned. We proceed to hear the matter finally.

3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated

13.05.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.6133/2023 (Mrs. Kiran Goutam Sharma vs. General Manager (Personnel) and Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ

petitioner / respondent herein.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/writ petitioner, a

regular employee of the Food Corporation of India, posted as Assistant Grade-II at District Office, Raipur, became pregnant with twins and, owing to medical complications, one foetus was aborted on 25.04.2019, while the remaining pregnancy was declared high- risk requiring prolonged bed rest; thereafter, she delivered a premature female child on 03.09.2019 and sought leave on account of abortion/miscarriage as well as maternity leave, besides reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at a private hospital. Despite repeated representations and correspondence, she was granted 68 days of Extra Ordinary Leave without salary, resulting in deductions of Rs.46,332/- and Rs.33,932/- from her salary, while her claim for additional statutory leave was rejected on the ground that she was governed by the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 and that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 was not applicable, her claim for medical reimbursement was also only partially

3

allowed. She thereafter relied upon the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2022 and sought 30 days’ leave for abortion/miscarriage and 60 days’ maternity leave, after adjustment of the leave already granted, along with reimbursement of the outstanding medical expenses of Rs.3,76,773/- and refund of Rs.80,254/- deducted from her salary, which led to the filing of WPS No.6133/2023. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 13.05.2026, partly allowed the writ petition, against which the

present writ appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single

Judge erred in granting the respondent 60 days’ special maternity leave and 30 days’ additional leave for abortion, as neither relief has any legal basis in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2022, relied upon for grant of 60 days’ special maternity leave, was issued subsequent to the relevant events of 2019 and is applicable only in cases of stillbirth or death of a child soon after birth, the latter expression being confined to death within 28 days of birth, and therefore has no application to the respondent’s case of miscarriage. It is further submitted that the respondent had already been granted 45 days’ leave on account of miscarriage from 25.04.2019 to 08.06.2019 and that her claim for an additional 30 days’ leave under Section 10 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is also untenable, as,