Second Maternity Leave Within 2 Years Valid: Allahabad High Court Says Executive Rules Cannot Override Central Law

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that there is no legal bar on granting a second maternity leave within two years, making it clear that such a restriction under service rules cannot override the statutory protection available under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

Court set aside an order dated April 4, 2026, by which the competent authority had rejected the maternity leave application of Manisha Yadav, a junior assistant posted at a government polytechnic in Barabanki. The leave sought was for 180 days, from April 6 to October 2, 2026, but was refused on the ground that it was “not admissible” under Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook.

Hearing the matter, Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar noted that the controversy was no longer res integra and had already been settled by multiple coordinate bench decisions of the high court. The petitioner relied on earlier rulings, including Anupam Yadav & Ors versus State of U.P. & Ors (2022), Anshu Rani versus State of U.P. & Ors. (2019), and Satakshi Mishra versus State of U.P. & Ors (2022), all of which had addressed similar disputes concerning denial of maternity benefits on technical grounds.

Court examined the reasoning in these judgments and observed that once the State of Uttar Pradesh has adopted the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act through government orders, the statutory framework must prevail over any inconsistent executive instructions contained in the Financial Handbook. It noted that the Act, enacted by Parliament, is a beneficial legislation intended to secure constitutional goals under Articles 38, 39, 42 and 43, and enjoys overriding effect.

Rejecting the State’s reliance on Rule 153 of the Financial Handbook, court emphasised that such rules are merely executive in nature and cannot curtail rights flowing from a central statute. The earlier judgments had also clarified that restrictions such as denial of a second maternity leave within a two-year period, as contemplated in the Financial Handbook, cannot be sustained in light of the Act, which contains no such limitation.

In the present case, court found that the petitioner’s leave application had been rejected without proper consideration, merely by stating that it was “not admissible.” Such a mechanical rejection, court indicated, was contrary to settled legal principles governing maternity benefits.

The bench reiterated that maternity leave is a statutory and welfare-oriented entitlement, and any interpretation that restricts it must be tested against the object of the legislation. It further held that once the Act applies, it would operate notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other rule, regulation, or service condition.

Accordingly, court quashed the impugned order dated April 4, 2026. It issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to sanction maternity leave to the petitioner for the entire period from April 6, 2026 to October 2, 2026, along with all consequential service benefits.

The writ petition was allowed at the admission stage itself, with the court declining to impose any costs.

Case Title: Manisha Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Edu. Lko. And Another

Judgment Date: April 16, 2026

Bench: Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar