Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48344 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9237 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. July Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar Sagar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Upendra Kumar Sagar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.07.2025, whereby, the petitioner's application for grant of second maternity leave for a period of 180 days has been rejected. Further prayer for issuing a direction to the respondents to grant maternity leave to the petitioner from 02.07.2025 till 28.12.2025 with full salary and other emoluments has also been sought. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the second maternity leave cannot be granted, until and unless, there is a time lapse of at least two years after the first maternity leave. 4. It is further contended that the aforesaid aspect has already been considered and decided by this Court in the case of Smt. Satakshi Mishra Vs. State of UP & Ors., Writ- A No.5114 of 2022, in which, it has been held that: 25. (1) The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 has been enacted by the Parliament in exercise of powers under Entry 24 in List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and to secure the goals stated in Articles 38, 39, 42 and 43 of the Constituton of India and also to give effect to the provisions contained in Article 15 (3) of the Constitution. (2) The provision of Financial Handbook are pre- Constitutional executive instructions and would be subsidiary to the Act of Parliament and in case of any inconsistency, the statutoy enactment framed by the Parliament would prevail and hence the provisions of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 would prevail over the provisions of Financial Handbook and, therefore, provision of Rule 153 (1) of the Financial Handbook Volume I to IV are read down with regard to admissibility of leave to a woman with regard to second pregnancy which would be governed by Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 and not Rule 153 (1) of the Financila Handbook Volume II to IV. (3) The State Government already having adopted the provisions of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 as per Government Order dated 11.4.2011, as recorded by this Court in the case of Anshu Rani Vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ A No.3486 of 2019, makes it abundantly clear that the provisions of Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 would prevail over any other law 5. The aforesaid judgement also indicates that the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1961") would prevail over the conditions of financial handbook, particularly Rule 153 (1) from Volume 1-4 of the financial handbook and the State Government has already adopted provisions of the Act, 1961 in terms of Government order dated 11.04.2011, as recorded in the case of Anshu Rani Vs. State of UP, Writ- A No.3486 of 2019. 6. It is disheartening to know that despite various judgements passed on the aforesaid aspect, the authorities are repeatedly rejecting the second maternity leave application, still relying upon provisions of the financial handbook without examining the aspect that the Act, 1961 would prevail over the financial handbook. 7. Keeping in view the above fact that the aforesaid aspect has already been considered and adjudicated by this Court as indicated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 is hereby quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari with the direction to the respondent no.3, i.e., Joint Director of Education, Secondary Education Department, Lucknow, to pass appropriate order within a period of one week, from the date the certified copy of this order is produced before him, sanctioning the second maternity leave to the petitioner w.e.f. 02.07.2025 till 28.12.2025. 8. Respondent no.3 is also warned to be careful in future while rejecting such applications since such rejection can be contemptuous in nature. 9. In view thereof, writ petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. 10. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 V. Sinha Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench