HC expands women’s rights, third child no bar to maternity leave
Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, Nov 19,
In a landmark development strengthening maternity rights for women employees, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered two significant rulings affirming that the birth of a third child cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny maternity leave. Both decisions underscore that maternity benefits must be interpreted through the prism of constitutional dignity, social justice, and the lived realities of women.
In the first case, Anuradha vs State of Himachal Pradesh, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua directed the state government to grant 12 weeks of maternity leave to a 43-year-old TGT teacher for the birth of her third child. The court held that women’s dignity—protected under Articles 15, 21, 42, and 51 of the Constitution—must guide the interpretation of maternity-related service rules.
The petitioner had sought leave following the birth of her first biological child with her second husband. Her application was rejected on the ground that the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, bar maternity leave beyond two biological children. However, the court noted that Section 5(3) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as amended in 2017, permits maternity relief even for the third child, albeit for a shorter duration.
Crucially, the court observed that the woman’s personal circumstances could not be ignored. She has two children from her previous marriage, one suffering from a severe illness. After remarrying a widower who had lost his wife and only child in an accident, she became the mother of his sole biological child. The court termed motherhood and reproductive decisions as matters interlinked with women’s dignity and fundamental rights, observing that service rules must yield to constitutional protections where necessary.
In a parallel verdict delivered in August this year, the High Court had taken a similar view while deciding the case of staff nurse Archana Sharma, thereby reinforcing the legal position even before the present ruling. In that case, Justice Sandeep Sharma quashed the state’s rejection of maternity leave for the birth of her third child. The court ruled that Rule 43(1) of the CCS Leave Rules must be interpreted purposively, especially when the first two children were born before the petitioner joined government service.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment in K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu, the August ruling held that childbirth is a “natural incident of life” and maternity benefits must be construed in that light. Justice Sharma emphasised that it is “not just motherhood but also childhood that requires special attention,” describing maternity leave as a matter of constitutional protection and social justice rather than administrative generosity.
Together, the two judgments strengthen a consistent judicial stance: that technical rules cannot override constitutional guarantees. The High Court has made it clear that laws relating to maternity must be applied with empathy, context, and constitutional morality, especially when they intersect with gender rights and human dignity.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
