SMT NEETUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                           WRIT - A No. - 5002 of 2026

Smt Neetu
                                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)               :   Sachin Malik
Counsel for Respondent(s)               :   Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, C.S.C.

Court No. - 32
            HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. This Court has passed following order on 09.04.2026:

     “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned
     Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Mr.
     Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&3.

     This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned
     order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the respondent no.3 as well as further
     prayer to direct the respondents to allow maternity leave to the petitioner
     for which she is entitled.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
     earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by means of filing Writ-
     A No. 1944 of 2026 (Smt. Neetu vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), which
     was disposed of by order dated 10.02.2026. The order under challenge
     was the rejection of the maternity leave application without disclosing
     any reason for the same. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition,
     this Court had directed the District Basic Education Officer, Bagpat, to
     consider the application of the petitioner 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 case of Smt. Neelam
     Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 45265 of 2011, Neutral
     Citation No.- 2015:AHC:60329. However, the impugned order dated
     28.03.2026 has been passed without understanding the order of this Court
     and the settled position of law.
                                                                                                   WRIA No. 5002 of 2026
                                                                        2


                                         This Court is of the opinion that the District Basic Education Officer,
                                         Bagpat, being a District Level Officer, should be well aware of the settled
                                         position of law, especially when a direction referencing the judgments
                                         passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, has already been
                                         mentioned in the earlier order.

                                         In view of the above, this Court is left with no option but to call upon
                                         respondent No. 3, i.e., the District Basic Education Officer, Bagpat, to be
                                         present before this Court on the next date fixed to explain his conduct by
                                         way of filing personal affidavit.

                                         Put up this case on 20.04.2026, as fresh.

                                         Registrar Compliance as well as Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional
                                         Chief Standing Counsel shall ensure the compliance of this order.”


                                    2. Today, Mrs. Geeta Chaudhary, District Basic Education Officer,

                                    Baghpat, has appeared and extended apology. She submits that the order

                                    impugned in this writ petition is withdrawn by a subsequent order dated

                                    17.04.2026 and a fresh order has been passed whereby grievance of

                                    petitioner for maternity leave is addressed. A personal affidavit to this

                                    effect is taken on record.


                                    3. In aforesaid circumstances, even in absence of learned counsel for

                                    petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of after taking note of aforesaid

                                    apology and subsequent orders.


                                                                                     (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    AK




Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad