Srinagar, Jul 11: In a landmark judgment regarding constitutional rights of working women, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a government communication that denied pay and allowances to Senior Residents and Tutors during maternity leave, holding that maternity benefits are a constitutional right and not an act of state charity.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while deciding a writ petition filed by Dr Sonakshi Gupta and other doctors, ruled that the Health and Medical Education Department’s communication dated October 14, 2025, which withheld salaries during maternity leave based on Finance Department advice, was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
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 availed maternity leave in accordance with Government Order No. 451-JK(HME) of 2024.
The order extended maternity leave benefits to postgraduate students, Senior Residents, Tutors and DNB trainees in Government Medical Colleges across Jammu and Kashmir.
However, despite the policy, their salaries were withheld after the issuance of the impugned communication.
The court observed that while the government had permitted maternity leave under its 2024 order, it could not subsequently deny salary during the leave period by relying on a Finance Department clarification.
Justice Oswal held that Rule 41(1) of the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, amended through SRO-353 of 2015, grants female employees up to 180 days of maternity leave with full leave salary equivalent to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave.
Calling the Finance Department’s communication a “blatant administrative overreach”, the court remarked that in its attempt to reduce public expenditure, the department had ignored constitutional safeguards protecting motherhood.
The judgment stated that penalising a woman because of the nature of her appointment while she undergoes the same biological realities as any other employee amounts to discrimination and violates the principles of equality.
The court also relied on an earlier Division Bench judgment in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. versus Tanu Gupta, which held that women employees cannot be subjected to financial disadvantage merely because they avail maternity leave.
Referring to Articles 15, 38, 39 and 42 of the Constitution, as well as Supreme Court judgments in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), Deepika Singh v. PGIMER Chandigarh and Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), the court underscored that maternity leave provisions must be interpreted in a manner that advances gender justice and protects the dignity of motherhood.
“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 observed, adding that the government cannot adopt contradictory positions after incorporating existing rules granting maternity leave benefits.
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the October 14, 2025 communication to the extent it denied pay and allowances during maternity leave and directed the Health and Medical Education Department to release full salary and allowances to the petitioners not only for the maternity leave period but also for the extended residency period corresponding to the leave availed.
