Allahabad High Court maternity ruling: The Allahabad High Court recently held that there is no bar for an employee in seeking a second maternity leave within two years from the first.
Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar allowed a plea filed against an order whereby a woman’s maternity leave request had been rejected as ‘not permissible’ under Rule 153(1) of the financial handbook, which restricts grant of second maternity leave within two years.
Relying on its judgment in Anupam Yadav and others v state of UP and others, the high court held, “There is no bar for an employee in seeking a Second Maternity benefit within a period of two years from the grant of the first maternity benefit”.
The petitioner had argued that the issue was already settled by coordinate bench decisions, which held that the Maternity Benefit Act, being a parliamentary legislation and beneficial statute, overrides instructions contained in the financial handbook.
On the other hand, the standing counsel, while relying upon the provisions of financial hand book Part II to IV read with Rule 153, opposed the contention of the petitioner.
The court noted that the judgments specifically held that second maternity leave within a period of two years from the grant of first maternity leave is admissible.
Relying on earlier precedents, the court reiterated that the restriction under Rule 153(1) could not be used to deny second maternity leave.
Holding the maternity leave rejection order unsustainable, the court quashed it and directed the competent authority to sanction maternity leave to the petitioner from April 6 to October 2, 2026, along with all consequential service benefits.
Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Anupam Yadav and others v state of UP
In this case the high court had ruled that once the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is adopted by the state then the said Act would apply with full force irrespective of the provisions contained in the financial handbook.
It added that such a handbook is merely an executive instruction and would in any case be subsidiary to the legislation made by the parliament.
“The provisions of Financial Handbook are merely executive instructions and would be subsidiary to the Act of the Parliament and in case of any inconsistency, the statutory enactment framed by the Parliament would prevail and hence, the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 would prevail over the provisions of the Financial Handbook,” the court had ruled.
It further added that the provisions of Rule 153 (1) of the financial handbook Volume II to IV are read down with regard to the admissibility of leave to a women with regard to second pregnancy which would be governed by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and not Rule 153 (1) of the financial handbook Volume II to IV.
The court held that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 would prevail over any law as the state government had already adopted its provisions.
“The State Government already having adopted the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as recorded by the Division Bench of this Court and followed by the Single Bench in the case of Anshu Rani versus State of UP…., it is clear that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 would prevail over any law,” the court said.