July 30: In a significant ruling reinforcing the maternity rights of women employees, the Allahabad High Court has held that a second spell of maternity leave cannot be denied merely because two years have not elapsed since the first maternity leave. The Court ruled that the provisions of the Code on Social Security, 2020 override executive instructions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Financial Handbook that prescribe such a restriction.
Justice Siddharth Nandan delivered the judgment on July 15, 2026, in Shikha Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Two Others, allowing a writ petition filed by two staff nurses employed under the Department of Medical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
The petitioners had each been granted 180 days of maternity leave in 2024. After conceiving again, they applied for another spell of 180 days’ maternity leave in 2026. Their applications were rejected by the competent authority solely on the ground that a period of two years had not elapsed since the earlier maternity leave, relying on the Government Order dated December 8, 2008 and Rule 153(1) of the U.P. Financial Handbook.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the restriction imposed by the Financial Handbook was inconsistent with the Code on Social Security, 2020, which governs maternity benefits and does not prescribe any mandatory interval between two pregnancies. They further contended that executive instructions cannot override a parliamentary enactment.
Accepting the submissions, the Court observed that Section 161 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 gives the Code overriding effect over any inconsistent law, rule or executive instruction. Justice Nandan held that the Code contains no stipulation requiring a minimum gap between two pregnancies for availing maternity benefits and, therefore, the executive instructions in the Financial Handbook could not curtail statutory rights.
The Court also underscored the constitutional commitment to protecting maternity benefits, referring to Articles 15, 38, 39, 42 and 43 of the Constitution. It observed that maternity protection forms part of the State’s constitutional obligation to safeguard the health, dignity and welfare of working women.
While examining the status of the Financial Handbook, the Court noted that its provisions are executive in nature and cannot prevail over legislation enacted by Parliament. It further observed that the Code on Social Security, enacted under the Concurrent List, would override any inconsistent State executive instruction in the absence of a law protected under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
The Bench also relied upon earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court, including Anupam Yadav, which had read down Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook in relation to second maternity leave and recognised the primacy of central maternity benefit legislation over executive service rules.
Setting aside the impugned rejection orders, the Court directed the petitioners to submit fresh applications for maternity leave under the Code on Social Security, 2020. It further directed the competent authority to decide the applications afresh in accordance with the law laid down in the judgment.
The ruling is expected to have wider implications for women employees in Uttar Pradesh government service, as it clarifies that maternity benefits cannot be restricted by executive service rules that are inconsistent with statutory protections under the Code on Social Security, 2020.
