( 2026:HHC:155 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 17446 of 2025 Decided on: 01.01.2026 Reema Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Karan Kapoor and Mr. Nitish, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J The respondents have filed the instructions. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. The petitioner is the mother of three children and a regular Government employee. Her first two children were born prior to her entering the Government service. Her third child was born on 25.07.2025. The petitioner applied for grant of maternity leave in respect of her third child, however, the respondents rejected the said request vide order dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-3), primarily on the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2026:HHC:155 ) ground that Rule 43(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 does not permit grant of maternity leave for the birth of a third child, particularly when a woman already has two surviving children. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Archana Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 In the said case also, the petitioner therein had claimed maternity leave in respect of her third child although the prayer for grant of such leave was made for the first time in service. The Court, placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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. When the instant matter was previously taken up for hearing, learned Additional Advocate General had apprised that a Letters Patent Appeal had been preferred by the respondents against Archana Sharma2. During the hearing today, learned counsel for the parties jointly apprised that though the LPA preferred by the respondents against Archana Sharma2 has been admitted on 12.12.2025, however, the application for grant of interim stay stands dismissed. The copy of order has been placed on record, relevant portion of which, reads as under: - 2 CWP No. 10589/2025 decided on 30.07.2025 3 (2023) 13 SCC 681 4 Civil Appeal No. 2526/2025 decided on 23.05.2025 3 ( 2026:HHC:155 ) “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.” In the instant case also, the petitioner had given birth to two children prior to her induction into service. The issue, therefore, pertains to the grant of maternity leave in respect of the third child born to the petitioner after joining service. Hence, the petitioner’s grievance is squarely covered by the judgment in Archana Sharma2. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave for the birth of her third child, in accordance with law and in light of the law laid down in Archana Sharma², within a period of two weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner All consequences shall follow. 4 ( 2026:HHC:155 ) The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 1st January 2026(rohit)