The Himachal Pradesh High Court has decided that the birth of a third child cannot inevitably be used as an excuse to refuse maternity leave, which is a significant decision for female employees. The twin rulings emphasise that women’s lived reality, social justice, and constitutional dignity must all be taken into consideration when interpreting maternity benefits.
After a 43-year-old teacher gave birth to her third child, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua ordered the state government to provide her 12 weeks of maternity leave. The court emphasised that the interpretation of service requirements must be guided by women’s dignity, which is guaranteed by Articles 15, 21, 42, and 51 of the Constitution.
The Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which prohibit maternity leave beyond two biological children, had denied the teacher’s application. However, the court cited the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (modified in 2017), which permits relief even for a third child, albeit for a shorter period of time.
Crucially, the court took into account her individual circumstances: she remarried to a widower who had lost his wife and only child, and she had two children from a prior marriage, one of whom was gravely ill. The court ruled that reproductive choices are inextricably linked to women’s basic rights and dignity, and that when necessary, service regulations must accommodate constitutional protections.
Judge Sandeep Sharma overturned the state’s denial of maternity leave for staff nurse Archana Sharma’s third child in a similar decision earlier in August. Given that her first two children were born before she began working for the government, Judge decided that Rule 43(1) of the CCS Leave Rules must be applied purposively.
The Supreme Court noted that delivery is a “natural incident of life” and that maternity benefits should be viewed as constitutional rights rather than administrative favors in its 2025 ruling in K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu. “Not just motherhood but also childhood requires special attention,” Justice Sharma continued.
When taken as a whole, the two decisions support a coherent judicial position: constitutional guarantees cannot be superseded by technical regulations. Maternity rules must be interpreted with empathy, context, and constitutional morality, according to the High Court, especially when they affect human dignity and gender rights.
