IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17559 of 2026 Decided on: 05.10.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Punya Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Menta, Advocate vice Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Considering the grievance of the petitioner raised herein, the case set up, documents appended herewith and the decision relied upon by the petitioner, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. The case set up by the petitioner, as canvassed by her learned counsel is that petitioner gave birth to two daughters before joining the services of the respondent- State Government. Petitioner was appointed as Patwari and she joined as such on 15.11.2021. She gave birth to third child on 17.08.2026. Petitioner's grievance is against the decision of the respondents as contained in Annexure P-2 dated 11.09.2026, rejecting the maternity leave application of the petitioner, citing Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. According to the respondents, a female Government servant with less than two surviving children can be granted maternity leave for a period of 180 days, however, the petitioner had prayed for maternity leave for the birth of her third child, which according to the respondents was impermissible. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Archana Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Ors2. In the said case also, the petitioner therein had claimed maternity leave in respect of her third child, although the prayer for grant of leave was made for the birth of the third child for the first time in service. The Court, placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2 CWP No. 10589/2025 decided on 30.07.2025 3 Deepika Singh Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal3 and K. Umadevi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.4 directed the respondents to grant maternity leave to the petitioner (therein), for the birth of her third child. 4. Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondents against Archana Sharma2 though had been admitted by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 12.12.2025, however, the prayer made by the State for staying the operation of the judgment dated 30.07.2025, passed in Archana Sharma2, has been dismissed. The order reads as under: - “LPA No. _______ of 2025 Appeal be registered. Notice. Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Keeping in view the controversy in issue, the appeal is admitted. CMP No....... of 2025 (CMPST No.65250 of 2025) Keeping in view the fact that the respondent had given birth to two children prior to induction in service and the issue pertains to the third child, who was born, after joining service, we do not find any plausible reason to stay the operation of the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed in CWP No.10589 of 2025. Accordingly the application is dismissed.” 3 (2023) 13 SCC 681 4 Civil Appeal No. 2526/2025 decided on 23.05.2025 4 In the instant case also, the petitioner as per the projected case, had not taken maternity leave for the birth of her first two children. The issue, therefore, pertains to the grant of maternity leave in respect of the third child born to the petitioner after joining service. Hence, petitioner’s grievance is squarely covered by the judgment in Archana Sharma2. Mere pendency of appeal against Archana Sharma2 is no ground for not considering the case of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave in light of Archana Sharma2, especially when Archana Sharma2 has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, rather, the interim application moved by the respondents-State, seeking stay of Archana Sharma2 stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Accordingly, respondents No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of maternity leave for the birth of her third child in accordance with law and in light of law laid down in Archana Sharma2 within a period of two weeks, i.e. by 20.10.2026. Order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. All consequences shall follow. 5 The writ petition to stand disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 5, 2026 Judge R.Atal