news details |
|
|
| Maternity Leave Is Constitutional Right, Not State Charity: HC | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 11: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that maternity leave is an enforceable constitutional right rooted in the dignity of women and cannot be treated as a matter of State charity, while quashing a government communication that denied salary and allowances to female Senior Residents and Tutors during maternity leave.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Sonakshi Gupta and other doctors, directed the Health and Medical Education Department to release full pay and allowances to the petitioners for the period of maternity leave as well as for the extended residency period corresponding to the number of leave days availed by them.
The petitioners, engaged as Senior Residents and Tutors under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2020, had challenged the communication dated October 14, 2025, under which their salaries were withheld on the ground that they remained "out of assignment" during maternity leave.
The Court observed that by denying emoluments to the doctors during maternity leave, the administration had effectively converted a vital socio-economic safeguard into an economic punishment.
"In a glaring departure from its character as a compassionate welfare State, the respondents have sought to penalise the petitioners for the foundational human experience of motherhood," the Court observed.
It further held that stripping women employees of their salary during one of the most vulnerable periods of their lives amounted to a profound constitutional injury.
The petitioners relied upon Government Order No. 451-JK(HME) of 2024 dated July 8, 2024, which extended maternity, medical termination of pregnancy and abortion leave to postgraduate students, Senior Residents, Tutors and DNB postgraduate doctors serving in government medical colleges across Jammu and Kashmir.
They contended that the government order expressly made existing government rules applicable to their maternity leave and, therefore, Rule 41(1) of the J&K Civil Services Leave Rules entitled them to 180 days of maternity leave with salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave.
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Abhinav Jamwal submitted that a woman employee could not be subjected to any financial disadvantage merely because she had availed maternity leave. He placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited and others versus Tanu Gupta.
Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, assisted by Advocate Saliqa Sheikh, represented the Union Territory administration.
The respondents argued that the petitioners were engaged on fixed-tenure academic assignments and did not hold regular civil posts. They maintained that the extension of residency was only intended to ensure completion of the prescribed training period and could not be treated as a source of additional financial benefits.
Rejecting the defence, the High Court held that the government could not grant maternity leave under existing service rules and then deny the accompanying salary by taking shelter behind the tenure-based nature of the appointment.
The Court termed the impugned communication a "blatant administrative overreach" and observed that the Finance Department, in its anxiety to reduce public expenditure, had lost sight of constitutional limitations.
"To penalise a mother based on the technical nature of her employment contract, while her physical and biological reality is identical to that of a regular employee, is an egregious infraction of equality that cannot withstand judicial scrutiny," the Court said.
Justice Oswal further observed that the government could not claim to function as a welfare State while simultaneously defending a discriminatory policy that deprived women doctors of their livelihood during maternity leave.
Relying upon constitutional guarantees under Articles 15, 38, 39 and 42, along with Supreme Court judgments protecting maternity benefits, the Court held that childbirth must be treated as a natural incident of employment and not as a disadvantage affecting a woman's service rights.
The Court underlined that any ambiguity or silence in rules governing maternity benefits must be interpreted beneficially to advance the rights of women employees rather than to engineer their exclusion.
"Maternity leave cannot be reduced to a matter of State charity; it is an unassailable constitutional right anchored in the dignity of women," the Court held.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the communication dated October 14, 2025, to the extent it denied pay and allowances during maternity and paternity leave, and directed the authorities to grant full financial benefits to the petitioner doctors during maternity leave and the corresponding extended period of residency. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
