Maternity Leave: No Two-Year Gap Required for Second Spell Under Social Security Code, Says Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently reiterated that the Code on Social Security, 2020, overrides executive instructions issued by the Uttar Pradesh government prohibiting the grant of a second spell of maternity leave within two years of the first.

Setting aside orders rejecting maternity leave applications of two government staff nurses, the bench of Justice Siddharth Nandan ruled that the statutory rights available under the Central law cannot be curtailed by Rule 153(1) of the U.P. Financial Handbook or the Government Order dated December 8, 2008.

Court made it clear that the Code on Social Security, 2020 does not impose any minimum interval between two pregnancies for claiming maternity benefits; therefore, the State cannot deny the benefit by relying on executive instructions.

The petition before the high court was filed by two regularly appointed nursing officers under the Department of Medical Education whose applications for 180 days of maternity leave for their second pregnancies had been rejected solely because two years had not passed since they had availed maternity leave in 2024. The authorities relied on Rule 153(1) of the U.P. Financial Handbook and the 2008 government order while refusing the leave.

Appearing for the petitioners were advocates Mohammed Iftekhar Farooqui and Jeeshan Ahmad Siddiqui, while the State was represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Rajan Sharma appeared for the respondent authorities.

Executive instructions and the Social Security Code

Court held that the Code on Social Security, 2020 is a Parliamentary enactment framed to implement the constitutional mandate relating to maternity relief. Since Section 161 of the Code expressly provides that its provisions will prevail over any inconsistent law, executive instruction or service condition, the State's policy restricting a second spell of maternity leave within two years cannot survive.

Justice Nandan observed that the Financial Handbook provisions were framed under the Government of India Act, 1935 and continue only by virtue of Article 313 of the Constitution. Such provisions, court said, are "at best" executive instructions and "by no stretch of imagination" can be treated as a legislative enactment capable of overriding a Central statute.

What did the court say about maternity benefits?

The judgment places maternity relief within the constitutional framework of social justice.

Referring to Articles 38, 39, 42 and 43 of the Constitution, along with Article 15(3), the court observed that ensuring just and humane conditions of work and extending maternity relief are constitutional obligations of the State. It said the grant of maternity benefits, protection of women's health and maintenance of dignified working conditions constitute a constitutional mandate that cannot be diluted by executive policies.

Court further noted that the Code on Social Security, 2020 nowhere prescribes a mandatory time gap between the birth of a first and second child for availing maternity benefits. Since Parliament deliberately omitted such a restriction, the State could not introduce one through executive instructions.

Allowing the writ petition, court quashed the rejection orders and directed the authorities to consider fresh maternity benefit applications under the Code on Social Security, 2020.

It ordered that the exercise be completed expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from the submission of fresh applications along with a certified copy of the judgment.

Case Title: Shikha Yadav and another vs State of UP and 2 others

Judgment Date: July 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Siddharth Nandan