Maternity leave to female govt employee for 3rd child: HP HC
Himachal Pradesh High Court: In the present petition, the petitioner challenged the order of the Senior Medical Officer (‘SMO’), Civil Hospital, Sirmaur, whereby the representation filed by her for grant of maternity leave was rejected as per Rule 43(1) of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 (‘CCS Rules’), on the ground that at the time of the delivery of the child, she already had two surviving children. A Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Sharma, J.relying on K. Umadevi v. State of T.N., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204, wherein it was held that both motherhood and childhood were to be considered while providing maternity leaveallowed the petition and quashed and set aside the SMO’s order directing him to grant maternity leave to the petitioner.
Background:
The petitioner got married in 2016 and gave birth to two children. In 2019, she got selected as Staff Nurse in the Civil Hospital, Sirmaur. On 05-03-2025, she delivered her third child and moved an application for grant of maternity leave from 06-03-2025 but the SMO, Civil Hospital declined her request. The petitioner then approached the Court which vide order dated 19-06-2025, directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s application within one week. When nothing was done, the petitioner again approached the Court through the present petition but before filing a reply to this petition, the respondents passed an order and rejected the petitioner’s claim for grant of maternity leave in terms of Rule 43(1) of the CCS Rules. Since the above order was not supplied to the petitioner prior to filing this petition, she was unable to challenge the same herein.
Analysis and Decision:
The question to be determined in the case was whether a female Government employee, who joined the service after giving birth to two children, could be denied benefit of maternity leave on the birth of the third child under the garb of Rule 43(1) of the CCS Rules.
The Court examined Rule 43(1) of the CCS Rules which provided that a female Government servant (including an apprentice) with less than two surviving children might be granted maternity leave by an authority competent to grant leave for a period of 180 days from the date of its commencement.
The Court discussed K. Umadevi (supra), wherein the Supreme Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to grant maternity leave to a female Government employee, who had given birth to her third child after her remarriage and the two children from her previous marriage were in custody of her ex-husband and while agreeing with the State that provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961would not apply therein, observed that her prayer for grant of maternity leave qua third child deserved to be considered in light of Rule 101 of the Fundamental Rules.
The Court analysed the above Rule and found that the maternity leave referred to in clauses (i) or (ii) of the CCS Rules, must be granted to a married woman Government servant with less than two surviving children, but second proviso to the said Rule provided that in case of a woman Government servant with two surviving children born as twins in the first delivery, maternity leave must be granted for one more delivery.
The Court referred to Supreme Court’s decision in Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, Chandigarh, (2023) 13 SCC 681wherein it was observed that the object of having two child norm was part of the measures to control population growth in the country and the object of providing maternity benefit to women employees including maternity leave, were not mutually destructive and that two must be harmonized in a purposive and rational manner to achieve the social objective.
The Court noted that the petitioner had given birth to her two children prior to her induction in her current service and her prayer for maternity leave, though for her third child, came to be made for the first time during the current service.
Thus the Court, keeping in mind the Supreme Court’s decision in K. Umadevi (supra) wherein it was observed that the concept of maternity leave was not just about fair play and social justice, but also about constitutional guarantee to the women employees of this country towards fulfillment whereof the State was bound to act, allowed the present petition, quashed the order of the SMO, Civil Hospital and directed the respondents to grant maternity leave to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 43(1) of the CCS Rules.
[Archana Sharma v. State of H.P., CWP No. 10589 of 2025, decided on 30-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Karan Kapoor, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar and B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.