High Court upholds maternity leave for third child if earlier two were born before service

Shimla: In a landmark decision safeguarding the rights of working mothers, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a woman government employee is entitled to maternity leave for her third child, provided her first two children were born before she joined government service.

The Court passed this verdict in favour of Archana Sharma, a Staff Nurse at Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, who was denied 180 days of maternity leave under Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. The hospital authorities had rejected her request on the ground that she already had two surviving children.

However, Justice Sandeep Sharma clarified that the restriction of maternity leave for only those with less than two surviving children cannot be used to deny maternity benefits when the earlier children were born before entering public service.

The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in K Umadevi v Government of Tamil Nadu & Others (Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 2025), which had held that:

“In the context of employment, childbirth has to be construed as a natural incident of life, and hence, provisions for maternity leave must be construed in that perspective.”

Further elaborating on the constitutional and humane basis of maternity leave, Justice Sharma quoted the Supreme Court’s observation:

“The very purpose of maternity leave is to ensure that a working lady may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, peaceably and undeterred by the fear of being victimized for forced absence from work during pre and post-natal periods.”

The court also noted the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Commissioner of Police v. Raveena Yadav (W.P. 9270/2024), where it was held that maternity leave serves not just the mother’s wellbeing but also the child’s health and care. The Delhi High Court emphasized:

“It is not just motherhood but also childhood that requires special attention… Maternity leave is a matter of fair play and constitutional guarantee, not merely a service rule.”

Although the State defended its action as consistent with population control policies, the High Court responded that such policies must be harmonized with the constitutional goal of protecting motherhood:

“The object of having a two-child norm and the objective of granting maternity benefits to working women are not mutually exclusive. Both must be balanced in a rational and purposive manner,” the judgment added.

The Court quashed the rejection order dated July 10, 2025, and directed the authorities to grant maternity leave to Sharma as per Rule 43(1) of the CCS Leave Rules.