Rejection of Maternity Leaves

Source:  Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Manish Kumar Nigam issued a contempt notice to the Director of Horticulture, U.P., for repeatedly rejecting a woman employee’s maternity leave on the invalid ground of a two-year gap between pregnancies, despite prior court rulings stating such a condition is not mandatory. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Sushila Patel v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others (2025). 

What was the Background of Sushila Patel v. State of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others (2025) Case? 

• Sushila Patel, a government employee working under the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing Department, Uttar Pradesh, filed a petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the repeated rejection of her maternity leave application. 
• The petitioner had applied for maternity leave but faced rejection from the Director on the ground that a mandatory gap of two years had not elapsed between her first and second maternity leave. This rejection was based on an alleged departmental requirement imposing a minimum waiting period between successive pregnancies for availing maternity leave benefits. 
• Previously, in November 2024, the Allahabad High Court had already set aside two rejection orders dated September 2024 issued by the same Director on identical grounds. The Court had specifically relied upon the precedent established in Guddi v. State of U.P. and Others (April 2022), which categorically declared that insisting on a minimum gap of 180 days or two years between pregnancies was not mandatory for sanctioning maternity leave in government service. 
• Despite the Court's clear directions and the binding nature of its earlier order, when the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 7th December 2024, enclosing a copy of the High Court's order, the Director once again rejected her application citing the same ground that had been previously quashed by the Court. 
• This repeated rejection prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court again, alleging willful disobedience of the Court's earlier directions and seeking appropriate relief for the grant of maternity leave. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Ajit Kumar, expressed serious displeasure over the conduct of the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing Department, Uttar Pradesh. 
• The Court observed that it was "unfortunate" that the Director had ignored the binding directions of the Court and had repeated the very same ground for rejection that had already been quashed in the earlier proceedings. 
• The Court specifically noted that despite clear directions issued in numerous petitions establishing that the requirement of a minimum two-year period between pregnancies was not mandatory for availing maternity leave benefits, the Director had failed to appreciate the legal position and rejected the application without justified reasons. 
• The Court characterised the Director's conduct as constituting a clear case of contempt of the High Court's order, noting the deliberate disregard for judicial directions that were binding in nature. 
• The Court observed that such wilful disobedience of judicial orders undermines the authority of the Court and amounts to an offence under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
• Consequently, the Court directed the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing Department, U.P. to appear in person before the Court on September 1 and show cause as to why proceedings for contempt of court should not be initiated against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
• The Court noted that such conduct warranted serious consideration for framing formal charges and initiating contempt proceedings against the errant official for his persistent failure to comply with judicial directions. 

What was Legal Provisions Referenced? 

Primary Legal Issue: Maternity Leave Requirements 

The Central Legal Question: Whether a mandatory waiting period of two years between pregnancies is required for government employees to avail a second maternity leave benefit. 

Court's Legal Position 

The Allahabad High Court has established that: 

1. 180-day gap requirement is NOT mandatory - The court ruled that the controversy regarding a 180-day gap between pregnancies "was no more res integra" (no longer an open question) as this provision has been held to be non-mandatory in government service matters. 
2. Two-year waiting period is NOT required - The court has consistently held in multiple cases that there is no mandatory minimum two-year period that must pass between two pregnancies for availing maternity leave benefits. 

Precedent Cases 

• Smt. Guddi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Writ A No. 4996 of 2022, decided April 8, 2022) - This appears to be the landmark judgment establishing that the waiting period requirements are not mandatory. 

Legal Framework 

While the specific statutory provisions aren't detailed in this order, this case involves: 

• Maternity leave provisions under government service rules 
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - for non-compliance with court orders 
• Administrative law principles regarding compliance with judicial directions