Maternity leave is a constitutional guarantee for women employees, essential for their health and that of their children, irrespective of previous births.

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Petitioner herein, who at present is serving as Staff Nurse at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, is aggrieved of order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure R-3), issued by Senior Medical Officer, Incharge, Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, whereby representation filed by the petitioner for grant of maternity leave for a period of 180 days came to be irejected on the ground that at the time of delivery of child, petitioner had two surviving children.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by respective parties are that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized in the year 2016 and thereafter, she gave birth to two children. In the year 2019, petitioner came to be selected as Staff Nurse on batch-wise basis and since then, she had been working in afore capacity at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. On 05.03.2025, petitioner delivered a child at

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. On 06.03.2025, petitioner moved an application for grant of maternity leave w.e.f. 06.03.2025, however, sPuch prayer of her was not considered and as such, she was compelled to approach this Court by way of CWP No.9854 of 2025, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 19.06.2025 with the direction to respondents to decide the application of the petitioner qua grant of maternity leave within one week, however, nothing was done and as such, petitioner again approached this Court through instant petition. While issuing notice vide order dated 03.07.2025, this Court specifically asked learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions that why till date, representation of the petitioner in terms of order dated 19.06.2025, passed in CWP No.9854 of 2025 has not been decided.

3. Pursuant to afore order passed by this Court, respondents before filing reply to the petition, passed order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure R-3)g, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave in terms of Rule 43(1) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which provides for maternity leave to female Government servant with less than two surviving children for a period of 180 days. Vide aforesaid communication, petitioner herein came to be apprised that since she has two surviving children, she is not entitled to maternity leave for third child, in terms of Rule, as detailed hereinabove. Since afore order never came to be supplied to petitioner, prior to filing the petition at hand, she was unable to lay challenge to the same in the instant petition, however, once afore order has been adduced on record by way of filing reply, validity, if any, of the same can be seen in the instant proceedings. P

4. Respondents in their reply have nowhere disputed factum with regard to solemnization of marriage of the petitioner in the year 2016 and thereafter, birth of two children, prior to her being appointed as Staff Nurse at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib. Claim of the petitioner, as put forth in the petition at hand, has been attempted to be defeated on the ground that Rule 43(1) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, nowhere permits grant of maternity leave qua birth of third child, especially when, female intending to seek such maternity leave is having two surviving children. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Rule 43(1) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which reads as under:

“43. Maternity Leave (1) A female Government servant (including an apprentice) with less than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave by an authority g competent to grant leave for a period of (180 days) from the date of its commencement.”

4.1. Though, having carefully perused aforesaid Rule, there appears to be merit in the contention raised at the behest of respondents/State, but question, which