Allahabad High Court
Anjali Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 August, 2025
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135477
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11360 of 2025
Petitioner :- Anjali Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Singh,Himanshu Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
By means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.7.2025 by which her application for maternity leave was rejected only on the ground that second maternity leave cannot be applied within a period of two years and hence same cannot be granted. The petitioner thereafter represented the matter to concerned authority, but her representation came to be rejected vide order dated 30th July, 2025.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that provisions as contained under relevant government order in creating a bar for second maternity leave within a period of two years have been held only directory in nature vide judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Anupam Yadav v. State of U.P. and Others 2022 (11) ADJ 669 and Ashu Rani v. State of U.p. and Others, (2019) 3 UPLBEC 1741.
In the case of Smt. Anupam Yadav (supra) vide paragraph 24, the Court has held thus:
"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. "
It is contended that matter of the Smt. Anupam Yadav (supra) came to be considered by a division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Charu Gaur v. State of U.P and 2 Others, Writ A No. 18775 of 2021 decided on 13.12.2024 and found its approval vide paragraph 9 of the judgment. The division bench has also cited a judgment of another division bench in the matter of Rachna Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. and Others,and Others, 2017 (11) ADJ 399 (DB) and agreed with the same. Vide paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgment in the case of Charu the Court held as under:
9. In the first place, statutory rules, they may not prevail over principal statutory law made by a principal legislature. In any case, that issue has been examined both by the Supreme Court (in the context of law arising from another State) and also by this Court in decisions in Anupam Yadav (supra). Once those decisions have been made by the Court as are not shown to be in conflict with any other law, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.
10. It may be useful to note, the decision in Anupam Yadav (supra) follows the law laid down by a co-ordinate bench in Rachna Chaurasiya v. State of UP & ors; 2017 (11) ADJ 399 (DB). There considering Government Order dated 11.04.2011, it had been observed that:
"24. From a perusal of the aforesaid Government Orders, it is clear that the State Government has adopted same policy as is enforced by the Central Government for grant of Maternity Leave as well as Child Care Leave to its employees.
25. Maternity benefit is a social insurance and the Maternity Leave is given for maternal and child health and family support. On a perusal of different provisions of the Act, 1961 as well as the policy of the Central Government to grant Child Care Leave and the Government Orders issued by the State of U.P. adopting the same for its female employees, we do not find anything contained therein which may entitle only to women employees appointed on regular basis to the benefit of Maternity Leave or Child Care Leave and not those, who are engaged on casual basis or on muster roll on daily wage basis.
26. The aforesaid view taken by us find full support from the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) & Anr., (2000) 3 SCC 224. It may be relevant to produce paragraph 27 from the said report.
"The provisions of the Act which have been set out above would indicate that they are wholly in consonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy, as set out in Article 39 and in other Articles, specially Article 42. A woman employee, at the time of advanced pregnancy cannot be compelled to undertake hard labour as it would be detrimental to her health and also to the health of the foetus. It is for this reason that it is provided in the Act that she would be entitled to Maternity Leave for certain periods prior to and after delivery. We have scanned the different provisions of the Act, but we do not find anything contained in the Act which entitles only regular women employees to the benefit of Maternity Leave and not to those who are engaged on casual basis or on muster roll on daily wage basis."
Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the legal proposition laid down in these judgments and hence could not defend the order passed by the authorities on the Principle involved by this Court. Under the circumstances, the order dated 4th July, 2025 and 30th July, 2025 cannot be sustained, they deserve to be quashed and no amount of affidavit on behalf of respondents can improve upon the same.
In the circumstances, I do not find it appropriate to find response from the State respondents.
In view of above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 4th July, 2025 and 30th July, 2025 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Administration) State Taxes, Bareilly impugned as annexures 1 and 2 of the writ petition are hereby quashed. The concerned respondent is directed to allow the application of maternity leave of the petitioner dated 27.5.2025 within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 8.8.2025
Sanjeev
