1 2026:CGHC:22454 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6133 of 2023 Order Reserved on: 23.3.2026 Order Delivered on: 13.5.2026 • Mrs. Kiran Goutam Sharma W/o Goutam Sharma, Aged About 44 Years Occupation Assistant Grade- Ii (A/cs.) Food Corporation Of India, District Office, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattsigarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. General Manager (Personnel) Food Corporation Of India Zonal Office (West), 2nd Floor, Fci New Building, Rajendra Nagar, Dattapada Road, Borivali (E) Mumbai- 66. 2. Manager Personnel, Food Corporation Of India Regional Office Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Post- Pandri, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Union Of India, Through General Manager (Personnel) Food Corporation Of India Zonal Office (West), 2nd Floor, Fci New Building, Rajendra Nagar, Dattapada Road, Borivali (E) Mumbai- 66. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4. The Food Corporation Of India Through General Manager (Personal) Zonal Office (West) 2nd Floor, F C I, New Building Rajendra Nagar Dattapada Road, Borivali (E) Mumbai-66. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 27-11-2025). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate. For Union of India : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing therein to the respondents to grant 60 days as special maternity leave and 30 days as addition leave after abortion thus total 90 days excluding 68 days of maternity leave as granted by the respondents. 10.2 Further may kindly direct to the respondents to pay remaining medical bills Rs. 3,76,773/- to the petitioner. 10.3 Further may kindly direct to the respondents to pay Rs. 80,254/ to the petitioner which had been deducted from her salary. 10.4 Any other relief/relief's which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is a regular employee of the respondent and is presently posted at the Food Corporation of India, District Office, Raipur (C.G.), on the post of Assistant 3 Grade-II that during the course of her service, the petitioner became pregnant with a twin pregnancy and, owing to complications, her condition became extremely weak that she remained under the medical supervision of Dr. Veronica Irene Yuel and, despite proper care, one foetus was aborted at NH-MMI Hospital on 25.04.2019, while the other pregnancy continued, which was declared to be highly sensitive and at risk, requiring prolonged complete bed rest, and accordingly, the treating doctor also addressed a letter dated 25.04.2019 to the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India that the petitioner thereafter submitted an application under Section 10 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 seeking additional leave of 30 days due to abortion that subsequently, the petitioner gave birth to a premature female child on 03.09.2019 and applied for maternity leave for the period from 16.09.2019 to 14.03.2020 and also submitted her medical bills on 09.09.2019 and 02.12.2019 that various correspondences ensued between the offices of the respondent, including letters dated 04.05.2020 and 15.07.2020, regarding instructions and reimbursement of medical bills incurred at a private hospital due to non-availability of required treatment at empanelled hospitals that, however, on 23.07.2020, the petitioner was granted 68 days of Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) without salary, and amounts of Rs. 46,332/- and Rs. 46,332/- and Rs. 33,932/- were deducted from her salaries for August and September 2020 respectively, without assigning any reasons; that the petitioner repeatedly submitted reminders dated 4 06.03.2021 and 24.05.2021 seeking grant of leave after abortion and reimbursement of medical expenses that further reminders and communications were made, including letters dated 04.06.2022 and 07.06.2022, wherein despite internal recommendations for payment, the bills were returned on the ground of lack of instructions from the Regional Office, Mumbai; that the petitioner again approached the authorities vide applications dated 24.06.2022 and 27.06.2022, seeking reasons for denial of statutory leave and reimbursement, and also relied upon Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2022 issued by the Government of India, claiming enhanced maternity benefits through representation dated 24.09.2022 that, however, the respondents, vide communications dated 14.12.2022 and 09.01.2023, denied applicability of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, stating that the petitioner is governed by the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, and rejected her claim for additional leave; that partial reimbursement of medical bills was later made as per memo dated 25.07.2023 wherein only a reduced amount was paid against the total bills submitted; that further, vide memo dated 05.06.2023, it was stated that the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2022 would not apply retrospectively to the petitioner’s case; and that despite prolonged representations and continuous follow-up for over five years, the petitioner was subjected to undue hardship and harassment, and only a partial amount of medical 5 reimbursement was released after persistent efforts, compelling the petitioner to file the present petition on the aforesaid grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, initially, upon conception, the petitioner was awaiting delivery; however, due to unforeseen medical complications, her pregnancy was unfortunately terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner conceived again and, in due course, gave birth to a baby girl. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that she was neither granted leave for the period of miscarriage nor sanctioned the full duration of maternity leave to which she was legally entitled under the applicable provisions of law. It is contended that the respondent authorities failed to duly appreciate that, following the termination of her earlier pregnancy, the petitioner was entitled to statutory leave on account of miscarriage and, upon her subsequent conception, she became entitled afresh to the complete period of maternity leave, which has not been accorded to her. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s medical expenses have not been fully reimbursed and only a partial reimbursement has been made without any cogent or justifiable reason. Accordingly, the petitioner claims entitlement to 60 days’ special maternity leave along with an additional 30 days’ leave for abortion/miscarriage, totaling 90 days, after adjusting the 68 days of maternity leave already granted to her. The petitioner further seeks payment of Rs. 3,76,773/- towards the outstanding amount of medical expenses and refund of Rs. 80,254/- which has been allegedly deducted 6 illegally from her salary. It is emphatically contended that the respondent authorities have committed a grave illegality in violation of settled legal principles and in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as maternity leave and leave on account of miscarriage are statutory as well as fundamental entitlements that cannot be arbitrarily denied. The denial of such benefits is stated to be contrary to the constitutional scheme, particularly in circumstances where the petitioner suffered a miscarriage and thereafter conceived again, thereby entitling her to leave for both periods under law; however, only 60 days of leave in total has been granted. Additionally, it is urged that the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for necessary treatment have not been reimbursed in full, and the partial reimbursement made lacks any lawful justification, despite such expenses being clearly admissible under the applicable Medical Reimbursement Rules. She has placed reliance upon the judgments passed in the matters of Shri Kuldeep Kumar vs. Food Corporation of India, S. Gomathy Nigam vs. The Managing Director and P.S. Noor vs. Union of India, Divya Jain vs. State passed on 8th January, 2025, Deepika Singh vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, MANU/SC/1056/2022. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, upon due verification of the records, maternity leave has been duly sanctioned to the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and that the 7 petitioner was granted 68 days of leave towards maternity benefits; however, it is contended that, upon further scrutiny, it came to the notice of the department that the petitioner did not have any sufficient leave balance in her account, and consequently, an amount of Rs. 80,254/- was deducted from her salary, which, according to the respondents, is lawful and in consonance with the applicable rules. It is further submitted that, as per the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2022 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, the benefit of 60 days’ Special Maternity Leave is admissible only in cases where a child dies soon after birth or in cases of stillbirth, and the department has clarified that the expression “death soon after birth” would extend only to cases where the child dies within 28 days of birth; therefore, the petitioner’s case of miscarriage, having occurred prior to the said period, does not fall within the scope of the said Office Memorandum. It is further contended that, in so far as the grant of maternity leave is concerned, the petitioner had already availed 45 days of leave on account of miscarriage, 21 days of commuted leave, and 41 days of earned leave, and having exhausted her leave balance, she was entitled only to 68 days of leave under the applicable Leave Rules, which has already been granted while determining her entitlement. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality or arbitrariness on the part of 8 the respondent authorities, and the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deepika Singh vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and others, (2023) 13 SCC 681, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “13. The significant issue which falls for determination in the appeal turns on the interpretation of Rule 43 of the 1972 Rules. The Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 43 is extracted below: “43. Maternity Leave.—(1) A female government servant (including an apprentice) with less than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave by an authority competent to grant leave for a period of (180 days) from the date of its commencement. (2) During such period, she shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. NOTE : In the case of a person to whom Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), applies, the amount of leave salary payable under this rule shall be reduced by the 9 amount of benefit payable under the said Act for the corresponding period. (3) Maternity leave not exceeding 45 days may also be granted to a female government servant (irrespective of the number of surviving children) during the entire service of that female government servant in case of miscarriage including abortion on production of medical certificate as laid down in Rule 19: Provided that the maternity leave granted and availed of before the commencement of the CCS (Leave) Amendment Rules, 1995, shall not be taken into account for the purpose of this sub- rule. (4)(a) Maternity leave may be combined with leave of any other kind. (b) Notwithstanding the requirement of production of medical certificate contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 or sub-rule (1) of Rule 31, leave of the kind due and admissible (including commuted leave for a period not exceeding 60 days and leave not due) up to a maximum of two years may, if applied for, be granted in continuation of maternity leave granted under sub-rule (1). 10 (5) Maternity leave shall not be debited against the leave account.” 14. The marginal note to Rule 43 is titled “maternity leave”. Sub-rule (1) stipulates that a female government servant with less than two surviving children would be granted maternity leave for a period of 180 days from the date of its commencement. Sub-rule (2) stipulates that during the period of maternity leave, the employee is entitled to leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. Sub-rule (3) stipulates that maternity leave not exceeding 45 days may also be granted to a female government servant, irrespective of the number of surviving children, during the entire service in case of a miscarriage including an abortion on production of a medical certificate. Sub-rule (4) stipulates that maternity leave is capable of being combined with leave of any other kind. 17. For the purpose of adopting an approach which furthers legislative policy, it would be appropriate to derive some guidance from the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (“the 1961 Act”) though, it must be stated at the outset that the Act per se has no application to the Pgimer as an establishment. Nonetheless, the provisions of the 1961 Act are 11 indicative of the object and intent of Parliament in enacting a cognate legislation on the subject.” 7. Upon perusal of the record as well as the rules framed thereunder, it is evident beyond doubt that a woman who conceives and is expected to give birth to a child is entitled to maternity leave of six months; such entitlement cannot be curtailed on the basis of mere assumptions or presumptions regarding the possibility of miscarriage, as the statutory framework itself recognizes and safeguards the rights of a pregnant woman. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 specifically provides that even in cases of miscarriage, the concerned woman is entitled to leave, albeit for a limited and prescribed period as provided under the law. Furthermore, the second aspect that merits consideration is that if the petitioner subsequently conceives again, the grant of leave for an earlier miscarriage or abortion cannot operate as a disqualification to deny her full maternity leave for the subsequent pregnancy. Under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, every woman, whether employed on a regular or contractual basis, is entitled to maternity leave of six months, and such statutory entitlement cannot be denied even to a temporary employee, as the object of the legislation is to ensure the health, dignity, and welfare of both the mother and the child. 8. The statutory entitlement to maternity leave cannot be curtailed on the ground that the petitioner does not have a sufficient leave balance in her account, as the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 12 expressly provides for a specific and independent period of leave to be granted to a woman employee, which operates irrespective of the ordinary leave account maintained by the employer; therefore, the respondent authorities cannot lawfully deny such benefit merely on the pretext of absence of leave balance, as such denial is contrary to the legislative mandate and runs afoul of the constitutional framework of the Constitution of India, particularly the principles safeguarding the dignity, health, and welfare of working women. The denial of maternity leave, including leave on account of miscarriage, amounts to a violation of the petitioner’s statutory as well as constitutional rights, and reflects a grave illegality on the part of the respondent authorities in refusing to grant benefits that are clearly envisaged under law. Insofar as the reimbursement of medical expenses is concerned, the same requires due consideration and verification by the competent authorities, and in this regard, it is appropriate that the respondent authorities examine the medical bills submitted by the petitioner and take a reasoned decision as to their admissibility and reimbursement in accordance with the applicable rules and policies. 9. The recovery of an amount of Rs. 80,254/- from the petitioner on the purported ground of absence of leave balance is wholly untenable and legally unsustainable, particularly in light of the statutory protections afforded under the governing maternity laws; such action on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary 13 and contrary to the settled principles of law, and therefore, the said recovery cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, the recovery of Rs. 80,254/- effected against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Insofar as the reimbursement of medical bills is concerned, the respondent authorities are hereby directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh, after undertaking a thorough and proper verification of all relevant documents and records submitted by her, and thereafter to pass a reasoned and appropriate order in accordance with law within a reasonable period. 11. However, insofar as the grant of leave is concerned, the petitioner is duly entitled to the benefit of leave for a period of 90 days, covering both maternity as well as miscarriage, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and governing rules, and such entitlement cannot be denied or curtailed by the respondent authorities. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 23.3.2026 13.5.2026 15.5.2026 Raghu Jat