Smt. Richa Shukla v. State of U.P. & others, decided on
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, through this petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by Respondent.no.4 (Annexure No.1). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent no.4 for granting of maternity leave to the petitioner from 19.03.2025 to 14.09.2025 (180 days) with full salary and other emoluments." Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is presently posted as Lecturer at Rajkiya Balika Inter College, Ganj Muradabad, District- Unnao. The petitioner had taken her first maternity leave w.e.f. 16.3.2024 to 11.9.2024. The petitioner again filed an application dated 12.3.2025 for grant of second maternity leave w.e.f. 19.3.2025 to 14.9.2025 (180 days). This application of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 20.3.2025 on the ground that according to Financial Handbook Volume 2 (Part 2 to 4), maternity leave can be given second time after two years from the end of first maternity leave. There is a consensus at the bar that this case is squarely covered by the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Service Single No. 32394 of 2019 in re: Smt. Richa Shukla vs. State of U.P. & others, decided on 11.12.2019 and the relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted herein below: "11. From perusal of Section 3(h) of 1961 Act, it clearly comes out that maternity benefit means the payment referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 5 of 1961 Act. Section 5 of 1961 Act provides that every woman shall be entitled to and an employer shall be liable for the payment of maternity benefit at a certain rate. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of 1961 Act provides that the maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be 26 weeks. Section 6 of 1961 Act provides that any woman employed in an establishment and entitled to any maternity benefit under the provisions of 1961 Act may give notice in writing to her employer stating that her maternity benefit be paid to her or to such person as she may nominate in the notice. Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of 1961 Act provides that on receipt of the notice, the employer shall permit such woman to absent herself from the establishment during the period for which she receives the maternity benefit.
12. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of 1961 Act thus indicate that a woman would be entitled to give notice in writing for grant of maternity benefit and on receipt of notice the employer shall permit such woman to absent herself from the establishment during the period for which she receives the maternity benefit. The 1961 Act does not contain any such stipulation of the time difference between grant of maternity benefit for the first and second child as stipulated in Rule 153 (1) of the Financial Handbook. Section 27 of 1961 Act categorically provides that the provisions of 1961 Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law whether made before or after coming into force of 1961 Act. The proviso to Section 27 of 1961 Act provides that in case a woman is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to her than those to which she would be entitled under 1961 Act, the woman shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that she would be entitled to receive benefits in respect of other matters under 1961 Act, meaning thereby that additional benefits that a woman would be entitled in terms of agreement or contract of service would be admissible to her notwithstanding anything contained in 1961 Act. Thus, it is the additional benefits which have not been precluded but in case there is anything contrary or inconsistent to the provisions of 1961 Act pertaining to maternity benefit then it would be the 1961 Act which would be applicable.
13. In the instant case, the maternity leave as applied by the petitioner has been rejected by placing reliance on Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook by contending that the same contains a restriction that the second maternity leave cannot be granted and would be admissible in case there is difference of less than two years between the end of the first maternity leave and grant of second maternity leave. Admittedly, the first maternity leave of the petitioner ended on 30.12.2017 and thus the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of second maternity leave. However, once 1961 Act does not contain any such stipulation accordingly it is apparent that the respondents have patently erred in placing reliance on Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave more particularly when Section 27 of 1961 Act provides that it is 1961 Act which would be applicable notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law or contract of service.
14. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the orders dated 13.11.2019 and 27.11.2019, copies of which are Annexures 1 and 5 to the writ petition. A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent no.4 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave, taking into consideration the observations made above, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." On due consideration to the aforesaid judgement of the Coordinate Bench and the provisions of Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 so far as the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgement dated 11.12.2019, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.3.2025 passed by the respondent no.4 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) is set aside. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent no. 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave in terms of the order dated 11.12.2019 (supra) within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is decided with the consent of the parties. Order Date :- 26.3.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, through this petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by Respondent.no.4 (Annexure No.1). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent no.4 for granting of maternity leave to the petitioner from 19.03.2025 to 14.09.2025 (180 days) with full salary and other emoluments." Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is presently posted as Lecturer at Rajkiya Balika Inter College, Ganj Muradabad, District- Unnao. The petitioner had taken her first maternity leave w.e.f. 16.3.2024 to 11.9.2024. The petitioner again filed an application dated 12.3.2025 for grant of second maternity leave w.e.f. 19.3.2025 to 14.9.2025 (180 days). This application of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 20.3.2025 on the ground that according to Financial Handbook Volume 2 (Part 2 to 4), maternity leave can be given second time after two years from the end of first maternity leave. There is a consensus at the bar that this case is squarely covered by the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Service Single No. 32394 of 2019 in re: Smt. Richa Shukla vs. State of U.P. & others, decided on 11.12.2019 and the relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted herein below: "11. From perusal of Section 3(h) of 1961 Act, it clearly comes out that maternity benefit means the payment referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 5 of 1961 Act. Section 5 of 1961 Act provides that every woman shall be entitled to and an employer shall be liable for the payment of maternity benefit at a certain rate. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of 1961 Act provides that the maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be 26 weeks. Section 6 of 1961 Act provides that any woman employed in an establishment and entitled to any maternity benefit under the provisions of 1961 Act may give notice in writing to her employer stating that her maternity benefit be paid to her or to such person as she may nominate in the notice. Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of 1961 Act provides that on receipt of the notice, the employer shall permit such woman to absent herself from the establishment during the period for which she receives the maternity benefit.
12. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of 1961 Act thus indicate that a woman would be entitled to give notice in writing for grant of maternity benefit and on receipt of notice the employer shall permit such woman to absent herself from the establishment during the period for which she receives the maternity benefit. The 1961 Act does not contain any such stipulation of the time difference between grant of maternity benefit for the first and second child as stipulated in Rule 153 (1) of the Financial Handbook. Section 27 of 1961 Act categorically provides that the provisions of 1961 Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law whether made before or after coming into force of 1961 Act. The proviso to Section 27 of 1961 Act provides that in case a woman is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to her than those to which she would be entitled under 1961 Act, the woman shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that she would be entitled to receive benefits in respect of other matters under 1961 Act, meaning thereby that additional benefits that a woman would be entitled in terms of agreement or contract of service would be admissible to her notwithstanding anything contained in 1961 Act. Thus, it is the additional benefits which have not been precluded but in case there is anything contrary or inconsistent to the provisions of 1961 Act pertaining to maternity benefit then it would be the 1961 Act which would be applicable.
13. In the instant case, the maternity leave as applied by the petitioner has been rejected by placing reliance on Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook by contending that the same contains a restriction that the second maternity leave cannot be granted and would be admissible in case there is difference of less than two years between the end of the first maternity leave and grant of second maternity leave. Admittedly, the first maternity leave of the petitioner ended on 30.12.2017 and thus the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of second maternity leave. However, once 1961 Act does not contain any such stipulation accordingly it is apparent that the respondents have patently erred in placing reliance on Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave more particularly when Section 27 of 1961 Act provides that it is 1961 Act which would be applicable notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law or contract of service.
14. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the orders dated 13.11.2019 and 27.11.2019, copies of which are Annexures 1 and 5 to the writ petition. A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent no.4 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave, taking into consideration the observations made above, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." On due consideration to the aforesaid judgement of the Coordinate Bench and the provisions of Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 so far as the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgement dated 11.12.2019, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.3.2025 passed by the respondent no.4 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) is set aside. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent no. 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave in terms of the order dated 11.12.2019 (supra) within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is decided with the consent of the parties. Order Date :- 26.3.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench