HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9928 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2 and Shri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.2.2025 passed by the respondents no. 3, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of maternity benefit has been rejected by contending that maternity benefit is only applicable for two children. Further prayer is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to grant maternity leave for 180 days after second delivery of the petitioner. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a married lady working as an Assistant Teacher. She had delivered for the first time on 10.6.2015 wherein twins were born. On account of second pregnancy currently she applied for grant of maternity leave but the same has been rejected vide order impugned on the ground as indicated therein. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once it is only the second delivery of the petitioner, the earlier delivery having resulted in twins being born consequently the respondents have failed to appreciate this aspect of matter while rejecting the application of the petitioner in a pedantic manner. 5. On the other hand, Shri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Kumar, Sunil Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shailendra Singh Rajawat Pooja Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) the respondent no. 3 has contended that the claim of maternity benefit is governed by Rule 153 of the Fundamental Rules which specifically prohibits grant of maternity benefit for third child wherein it has been indicated that in case a lady is having two or more children she would not be entitled for maternity benefit. Shri Rajawat states that thus the order or rejection is in consonance with Rule 153 of the Fundamental Rules. 6. From the facts as indicated above it is clearly apparent that it is the second pregnancy of the petitioner, earlier twins having been born in the first pregnancy. Once the petitioner has only prayed for the maternity benefit on account of second pregnancy consequently it is apparent that the respondents have taken a very technical and restrictive view while considering her application under Rule 153 of the Fundamental Rules in as much as the situation as has been arisen in the instant case is neither contemplated nor indicated in the said rules. Once a situation as has arisen is not contemplated under rules, the competent authority should have applied his mind to the aforesaid peculiar situation and then to have passed an order with application of mind but the manner in which the order impugned has been passed indicates a pedantic manner in rejecting the application of the petitioner without even applying his mind to the peculiar situation which has arisen in the instant case which thus reflects patent non application of mind on the part of the respondent no. 3. 7. Considering the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 13.2.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is set aside. The respondent no. 3 is directed to pass a fresh order on the application of the petitioner for maternity leave taking into consideration the discussion made above. Let such an order be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 9, 2025 J. K. Dinkar WRIA No. 9928 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench