In a writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of an order dated 09-01-2026 and an order dated 06-01-2026 by respondent 3 whereby the maternity leaves of petitioners 1 and 2 were rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Siddharth Nandan set aside the impugned orders and directed for appropriate actions to be taken within two weeks of filing of fresh applications by the petitioners.
Both petitioners were working as a regularly appointed Staff Nurse/Nursing Officer under the Department of Medical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh. By this petition, they also sought a direction upon the respondents to immediately sanction and grant maternity leave to petitioner 1 for 180 days from 19-01-2026 and to petitioner 2 from 21-01-2026, along with all consequential service benefits admissible under law as if they were in continuous service during the said period. It was submitted that the petitioner’s claim for maternity leave was rejected based on a Government Order dated 08-12-2008, which was contrary to The Code on Social Security, 2020. It was submitted that the G.O. provided that a second spell of maternity leave cannot be granted within two years from the date that the last maternity leave is availed.
The Court noted that the issue was whether Rule 153(1) of Chapter XIII of the U.P. Fundamental Rules contained in Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4 were applicable to a regular government servant or whether the provisions of the 2020 Code, being a Central enactment, would prevail and govern the field under constitutional scheme.
The Court referred to various constitutional provisions and stated that the nature of the Rules contained in the Financial Handbook, was at best, that of executive instructions and that they could not be brought within the category of an ‘enactment’ made by the legislature. It was stated that the grant of maternity benefits, protection of health and strength of workers, and maintenance of a decent standard of life through just and humane conditions of work, constitute a constitutional mandate as well as an obligation upon the State.
The question that arose for consideration was whether the benefit of “maternity relief” could be curtailed by executive instructions and policies by the State or whether The Code on Social Security, 2020, enacted by the parliament, would prevail. The Court stated that where Parliament has legislated on a subject contained in List III and State Legislature enacts a law overriding the said provisions, such law would require the President’s assent, which was not the case in the present matter.
The Court stated that the 2020 Code did not contain any stipulation prescribing a time gap between grant of maternity benefits for the first and second child, as per Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook. It was noted that Section 161 of the Code provided that notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, whether made before or after the enforcement of the said Code, the provisions of the Code shall prevail. Hence, the Court held that the stipulation in the G.O. and Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook could not be permitted to override or curtail the benefits under the Code.
The Court concluded that the provisions of the 2020 Code sought to secure the goals enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution, and also give effect to the provisions contained in Article 15(3). Hence, it was held that the 2020 Code was to prevail over any executive instructions. The impugned orders were set aside and directions were issued for respondent 3 to take appropriate actions within two weeks if the petitioners filed fresh applications and if the benefits are permissible for the period concerned. Thus, the petition was allowed.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Protects Law Students From Losing Academic Year Over Attendance Shortfall
