Nidhi Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education And

behalf of the respondent no.1, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Dr. Udav Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

3. Under challenge are the orders dated 30.06.2025, 10.08.2025 & 16.08.2025 passed by the respondent no. 4, copies of which have been filed as annexure 1 collectively to the writ petition.

4. By the aforesaid orders, the claim of the petitioner for grant of second maternity benefit has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had earlier been granted maternity benefit and two years have not lapsed since then so as to enable the competent authority to grant the second maternity benefit.

5. Whether there is a bar for an employee to seek second maternity benefit within a period of two years from the grant of first maternity benefit has been considered threadbare by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anupam Yadav and Ors Vs. Sate of U.P and Ors- 2022 (1) ADJ 669 wherein it has been held as under:- "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 2 WRIA No. 9975 of 2025 made by the Parliament.

25. In conclusion it can safely be said that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 has been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of powers under Entry 24 in List-III of the Seventh schedule of the Constitution of India and to secure the goals stated in Articles 38, 39, 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India and also to give effect to the provisions contained in Article 15 (3) of the Constitution. 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 and consequently, 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 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 U.P. passed in Writ-A No. 3486 of 2019, it is clear that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 would prevail over any law.

26. In the case at hand the maternity leave so applied by the petitioner has been rejected simply by stating "Anumanya Nahi". Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the maternity leave in terms of the restriction imposed by the second proviso of Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook to the effect that second maternity leave cannot be granted where 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 was availed and she gave birth to a male child on 4.1.2021. The petitioner became pregnant again and applied again for maternity leave on 11.6.2022. The second maternity leave to the petitioner has been refused by the impugned order. However, once the 1961 Act does not contain any such stipulation, the Basic Education Officer manifestly erred in rejecting the leave to the petitioner more particularly when Section 27 of the 1961 Act provides that it is the 1961 Act which would be applicable notwithstanding anything in consistent contained in any other law or contract of service."

6. From a perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anupam Yadav (supra) it emerges that the Division Bench has held that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 being a beneficial legislation would have overriding effect over the provisions of Financial Handbook and it was specifically held that second maternity leave within a period of two years from the grant of first maternity leave is admissible.

7. Considering the aforesaid law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anupam Yadav (supra) it clearly emerges that the orders impugned 3 WRIA No. 9975 of 2025 reflect patent non application of mind to the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 30.06.2025,

10.08.2025 & 16.08.2025 passed by the respondent no. 4, copies of which have been filed as annexure 1 collectively to the writ petition are set aside.

9. The respondents are directed to sanction second maternity leave as admissible to the petitioner in accordance with law and the relevant rules which would be granted within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 2, 2025 Pachhere/- (Abdul Moin,J.) SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

behalf of the respondent no.1, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Dr. Udav Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

3. Under challenge are the orders dated 30.06.2025, 10.08.2025 & 16.08.2025 passed by the respondent no. 4, copies of which have been filed as annexure 1 collectively to the writ petition.

4. By the aforesaid orders, the claim of the petitioner for grant of second maternity benefit has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had earlier been granted maternity benefit and two years have not lapsed since then so as to enable the competent authority to grant the second maternity benefit.

5. Whether there is a bar for an employee to seek second maternity benefit within a period of two years from the grant of first maternity benefit has been considered threadbare by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anupam Yadav and Ors Vs. Sate of U.P and Ors- 2022 (1) ADJ 669 wherein it has been held as under:- "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 2 WRIA No. 9975 of 2025 made by the Parliament.

25. In conclusion it can safely be said that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 has been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of powers under Entry 24 in List-III of the Seventh schedule of the Constitution of India and to secure the goals stated in Articles 38, 39, 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India and also to give effect to the provisions contained in Article 15 (3) of the Constitution. 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 and consequently, 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 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 U.P. passed in Writ-A No. 3486 of 2019, it is clear that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 would prevail over any law.

26. In the case at hand the maternity leave so applied by the petitioner has been rejected simply by stating "Anumanya Nahi". Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the maternity leave in terms of the restriction imposed by the second proviso of Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook to the effect that second maternity leave cannot be granted where 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 was availed and she gave birth to a male child on 4.1.2021. The petitioner became pregnant again and applied again for maternity leave on 11.6.2022. The second maternity leave to the petitioner has been refused by the impugned order. However, once the 1961 Act does not contain any such stipulation, the Basic Education Officer manifestly erred in rejecting the leave to the petitioner more particularly when Section 27 of the 1961 Act provides that it is the 1961 Act which would be applicable notwithstanding anything in consistent contained in any other law or contract of service."

6. From a perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anupam Yadav (supra) it emerges that the Division Bench has held that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 being a beneficial legislation would have overriding effect over the provisions of Financial Handbook and it was specifically held that second maternity leave within a period of two years from the grant of first maternity leave is admissible.

7. Considering the aforesaid law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anupam Yadav (supra) it clearly emerges that the orders impugned 3 WRIA No. 9975 of 2025 reflect patent non application of mind to the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 30.06.2025,

10.08.2025 & 16.08.2025 passed by the respondent no. 4, copies of which have been filed as annexure 1 collectively to the writ petition are set aside.

9. The respondents are directed to sanction second maternity leave as admissible to the petitioner in accordance with law and the relevant rules which would be granted within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 2, 2025 Pachhere/- (Abdul Moin,J.) SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench