Back
J&K High Court Rules Female Senior Residents Entitled to Full Pay During
The has delivered a significant ruling affirming that female Senior Residents and Tutors are entitled to during , as well as during the corresponding extension of their residency period necessitated by such leave.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, presiding over a single-judge bench, quashed a communication from the dated , which had advised that Senior Residents/Tutors would not be entitled to pay during maternity or . The Court held that such denial was contrary to the statutory framework and constitutional guarantees.
A Mother's Right Affirmed
The petition was filed by Dr. Surbhi Sharma, a Senior Resident (Registrar/Demonstrator) in the discipline of Pathology at . Appointed in under the J&K Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2020, she gave birth to a child on . She was sanctioned 180 days of from to . However, her salary for this period was withheld pursuant to the impugned communication, causing severe financial hardship to her and her newborn.
The Grievance: Denial of Pay During
Dr. Sharma challenged the communication, arguing that dated , had expressly extended benefits to Senior Residents/Tutors in accordance with existing government rules. Specifically, , as amended by , unequivocally provides that during , a woman employee shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave.
She contended that the impugned communication, being merely an administrative advisory, could not override a . The respondents, represented by , fairly conceded the matter, acknowledging that the issue was covered by the High Court's earlier judgment in , decided on .
Statutory Framework and Precedents
The Court meticulously examined the legal framework. It noted that under
, female Senior Residents/Tutors are allowed
as per existing government rules and regulations. Rule 41(1) of the Leave Rules provides for
up to 180 days, during which the employee
"shall be paid
."
The Court further relied on the
of
Dr. Sonakshi Gupta
, which had already set aside the same communication to the extent it denied pay and allowances during
. Additionally, the
's judgment in
Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India
(2026 INSC 246) was cited, holding that
"the protection of the
is a
"
and an essential component for equality at the workplace. Another
decision,
K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu
(2025 LiveLaw (SC) 614), emphasized that
is not just a matter of
but a
.
Key Observations from the Bench
Justice Kazmi made several powerful observations underscoring the importance of :
", (amended via) clearly provides for 180 days of, a female employee has anto be paid a leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave."
The Court further noted that the underlying objective of the applicable government order and leave rules is
"to advance
and serves multiple purposes including enabling the mother's physical recovery, facilitating the nurturing care of the child and ensuring the level of her previous efficiency and output."
It also ensures that women are treated with
and protected from
on account of forced absence during maternity.
The Verdict and Its Implications
In light of the statutory mandate, the , and the respondents' concession, the Court disposed of the petition at the threshold. It set aside the communication dated , insofar as it denied pay and allowances during . The respondents were directed to grant to the petitioner for the entire period and also for the extended period of residency corresponding to the number of days of .
This ruling reaffirms that female medical professionals on tenure-based academic appointments cannot be deprived of their statutory maternity benefits. It sends a clear message that the right to paid is absolute and cannot be curtailed by , ensuring economic security for working mothers during a crucial phase of life.
