The petitioner, S, an employee under the Department of Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttar Pradesh, had initially applied for her second maternity leave in September 2024. Her application was rejected by the department on two occasions, 11 September and 23 September 2024, on the ground that she could not avail of a second maternity leave within two years of the first. Aggrieved, she approached the Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 17287 of 2024. On 6 November 2024, the High Court quashed both rejection orders, holding that the requirement of a two-year or 180-day gap between pregnancies was not mandatory. The Court relied upon its earlier ruling in Smt. Guddi v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ-A No. 4996 of 2022, decided on 8 April 2022). The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s case within six weeks. Following this, the petitioner submitted a fresh application dated 7 December 2024, enclosing the High Court’s order. However, the Director of Horticulture and Food Processing once again rejected her application on the same ground, forcing her to return to Court.
The petitioner argued that the Director’s repeated rejection of her application was in blatant disregard of the High Court’s binding directions. She contended that the insistence on a two-year gap between successive maternity leaves had already been declared untenable in-service law matters. The petitioner submitted that maternity leave is a statutory and constitutional right linked to dignity, health, and motherhood, and such arbitrary denial amounted not only to administrative illegality but also to contempt of Court.
The State, represented by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, attempted to defend the rejection on the ground that departmental rules required a minimum two-year gap between two maternity leaves. However, it was conceded that the issue of a mandatory gap had already been settled by this Court in earlier cases, including Smt. Guddi v. State of U.P., and therefore could not be treated as a valid reason for rejection.
Justice Ajit Kumar took strong exception to the Director’s conduct in ignoring binding judicial pronouncements. The Court noted: “It is unfortunate that despite directions issued by this Court in a number of petitions that such requirement of minimum two years period to pass in between two pregnancies was not mandatory to avail benefit of maternity leave… yet Director, Horticulture and Food Processing Department, U.P., Lucknow U.P. failed to appreciate the same and rejected the maternity leave application for no justified reasons.”
The Court emphasized that maternity leave provisions are designed to protect the health and dignity of working women and cannot be curtailed through artificial barriers like mandatory gaps. The Court underscored that such rejection was not only contrary to law but also “amounts to clear contempt of the order of this Court in both directions issued earlier.”
Taking a stern view, the Court directed the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing Department, Uttar Pradesh, to personally appear before the Court on 1 September 2025 and show cause as to why contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, should not be initiated against him. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel was ordered to communicate this directive to the concerned authority within 24 hours. The Court’s strong stance reinforced that denial of maternity leave, especially in defiance of judicial orders, is impermissible and will invite personal accountability.
Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai
