IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16226 of 2025 Decided on: 15th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Komal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Kumar and Mr. Nitish, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner is presently serving as Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teacher at GPS Bainjuan, Education Block Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour. The case set up by her is that:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3(i). Petitioner had joined service in the respondent- Education Department on 10.09.2018. Prior to her joining the government service, a son was born to her on 03.03.2017. 3(ii). After joining the government service, the petitioner was blessed with a daughter on 28.07.2019, for which she duly availed maternity leave in terms of the applicable rules. 3(iii). On 05.08.2025, petitioner gave birth to her third child-a son. She applied for maternity leave, however, her application was treated and processed as earned leave by the respondents instead of maternity leave. Hence, grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had availed maternity leave only once, i.e. for her second child in the year 2019. She is entitled to avail full maternity leave for the birth of her third child (2nd child after joining the government service). Relief has been claimed by the petitioner on the strength of the decision rendered in Archana Sharma Versus State of H.P. and Others2. The said decision, in turn, is based upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Umadevi Vs. 2 CWP No.10589 of 2025, decided on 30.07.2025 3 Government of Tamil Nadu and Others3. Operative portion from the decision in Archana Sharma2 reads as under:- “6.1. In afore case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, though Hon’ble Apex Court acknowledged that petitioner in that case has two biological children out of her first wedlock, but yet proceeded to grant benefit of maternity leave to petitioner in that case qua the child which she delivered after remarriage on the ground that two children out of her first wedlock are not residing with her, but with their father. 7. In the case at hand, petitioner herein had given birth to two children prior to her induction in service but her prayer to grant her maternity leave, though may be qua third child of her during service, came to be made for first time. If it is so, prayer made on her behalf for grant of maternity leave deserves to be allowed, especially in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Umadevi (supra), wherein judgment passed by Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.9270/2024, titled as Commissioner of Police Vs. Raveena Yadav, decided on 22.07.2024, has been taken note of, whereby it has specifically explained the purpose of maternity benefit. Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that very purpose of maternity leave is to ensure that a working lady may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, peaceably and undeterred by the fear of being victimized for forced absence from work during pre and post natal periods. Most importantly, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that it is not just motherhood but also childhood, that requires special attention and health issues of both mother as well as that of the child are to be kept in consideration while providing maternity leave. Concept of maternity leave is a matter of not just fair play and social justice but is also a constitutional guarantee to the women employees of this country towards fulfilment whereof the State is bound to act. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure 3 Civil Appeal No.2526 of 2025, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 23.05.2025 4 R-3), issued by Senior Medical Officer, Incharge, Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, is quashed and set-aside with the direction to respondents to grant maternity leave to the petitioner in terms of Rule 43(1) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, forthwith.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner presently has been compelled to avail earned leave, which is due to expire on 20.10.2025. Despite this, the respondents have not considered and decided her representation dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) for grant of maternity leave. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/ competent authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave for birth of her third child in accordance with Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 keeping in view the decision rendered in Archana Sharma2. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) in accordance with law and Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Archana Sharma2 within a period of ten days from today, 5 i.e. by or before 27.10.2025. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 15, 2025 Judge Mukesh