WPSB/492/2023
2025 Latest Caselaw 2280 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSB/492/2023 on 6 March, 2025

                   Office Notes,
                      reports,
                     orders or
                   proceedings
SL.
        Date       or directions
No
                        and                                                        2025:UHC:1556-DB
                    Registrar's
                    order with                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                    Signatures
      06.03.2025                   WPSB No. 492 OF 2023

                                   Hon'ble G. Narendar, C.J.

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State.

2. The short question in issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to consideration and grant of maternity leave contrary to the provisions of Proviso to Rule 153 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules. The issue is no more res integra. A Co-ordinate Bench headed by the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice and companion Judge, while considering the appeal (Special Appeal No.736 of 2019) preferred by the State had been pleased to hold in Paragraph No.18 as under:-

"18. Since the 1961 Act is, itself, inapplicable to government servants, the question, of the second proviso to FR 153 being inconsistent with the provisions of the 1961 Act, does not arise. Section 27 of the 1961 Act cannot, therefore, form the basis of declaring the second proviso to FR 153 ultra vires the provisions of the 1961 Act."

3. That apart, by the said judgment, the Co- ordinate Bench has been pleased to set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge had been pleased to allow the writ petition and declare Rule 153 of the Fundamental Rules as being ultra vires the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

4. The issue having attained finality and the judgment and the order of the Co-ordinate Bench being in consonance with the law, we are in agreement with the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench.

5. Hence, the instant writ petition being misconceived, is accordingly, rejected.

6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

      (Alok Mahra, J)                        (G. Narendar, CJ)

           06.03.2025                           06.03.2025
NISHANT