Allahabad High Court
SUSHMA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The order rejecting the petitioner’s maternity leave claim was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in view of settled law.
Summary
Petitioner Sushma Devi, an Assistant Teacher in Pilibhit, filed a writ petition challenging a September 13, 2026 order that rejected her application for maternity leave for the period 18 September 2026 to 16 March 2027. She argued that she is entitled to the leave under established jurisprudence, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu and the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Smt. Neelam Shukla v. State of U.P. The respondents contended that the grievance would be considered in accordance with law. The High Court held that the impugned order was contrary to the settled law on maternity leave, quashed it, and remitted the matter to the District Basic Education Officer to reconsider the application afresh within four weeks. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to maternity leave under the applicable statutory and case law provisions.
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s maternity leave application violates the precedent set by K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Smt. Neelam Shukla v. State of U.P.
- Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Subjects
- maternity leave
- government employee
- writ petition
- quash order
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16039 of 2026
Sushma Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shashi Kant Srivastava
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State, Mr. Shashi Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent BSA
and perused the record.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging an order
dated 13.9.2026 passed by respondent no. 4, vide which the claim for
maternity leave of the petitioner has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed
on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School Block Amaria, District
Pilibhit, by order dated 16.10.2020. Pursuant to the said appointment, the
petitioner joined her services on 19.10.2020. Prior to her appointment as
Assistant Teacher, the petitioner was blessed with a child in the year 2016.
After her appointment as Assistant Teacher, second child was born in the
year 2024. Now, the petitioner has again conceived (second child after her
appointment) and has applied for maternity leave for the period 18.09.2026
to 16.03.2027, which has been rejected by the order impugned without
paying regard to the settled law on the issue.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's application
has been rejected without considering the fact that the petitioner is entitled
for the said leave in view of the settled law as laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 2526 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20178 of 2022),
and by this Court in the cases of Smt. Neelam Shukla v. State of U.P. and
others, Writ-A No. 45265 of 2011 : Neutral Citation No.-
WRIA No. 16039 of 2026
2
2015:AHC:60329.
Learned counsel for the respondent BSA submits that grievance of the
petitioner will be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the
order impugned dated 13.09.2026 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to
the District Basic Education Officer, Pilibhit - respondent no. 3 to consider
and decide petitioner's application afresh in view of the settled proposition of
law, referred to hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of
four weeks from today.
The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
No order as to costs.
September 30, 2026
DS
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DIGAMBER SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…