The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that maternity leave is not a matter of State charity but an unassailable constitutional right rooted in the dignity of women. The Court also made it clear that once the government grants maternity leave under its rules, it cannot deny women doctors their salaries during the leave period through an executive communication.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal made the observations while allowing a petition filed by several doctors engaged in government medical colleges. The doctors had challenged a communication that stopped payment of their salaries during maternity leave. Calling the move an instance of administrative overreach, the Court held that the right to paid maternity leave cannot be defeated through executive fiat, Bar & Bench reports.
Court draws a clear line on maternity benefits
“Maternity leave cannot be reduced to a matter of state charity; it is an unassailable constitutional right anchored in the dignity of women. The respondents, having explicitly absorbed the existing Government Rules vide order dated July 8, 2024 to grant maternity leave to these Doctors, cannot now blow hot and cold by withholding their salaries. The right to full emoluments is an organic corollary of the right to leave itself, which cannot be defeated by an arbitrary executive fiat,” the Court ruled.
The petitioners were senior residents and tutors appointed under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2020. They challenged an October 14, 2025 communication issued by the Union Territory’s Health and Medical Education Department, on the advice of the Finance Department, which denied them pay and allowances during maternity leave on the ground that they were “out of assignment”.
The doctors argued that a government order dated July 8, 2024 had already extended maternity leave to them in line with the existing government rules. They said they were never informed that availing maternity leave would result in loss of salary. Their counsel also relied on the High Court's earlier judgment in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Tanu Gupta and Rule 41(1) of the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979, which provides for paid maternity leave.
Government's stand rejected
The Jammu and Kashmir administration argued that the petitioners were tenure-based appointees and not regular government employees, making them ineligible for paid maternity leave. It also submitted that the extension of residency after maternity leave was only meant to help them complete the prescribed training period and did not entitle them to salary during the leave period.
Rejecting the government's stand, the High Court held that the July 8, 2024 government order had clearly extended maternity leave to senior residents and tutors under the prevailing government rules and regulations. Once that benefit was granted, the government could not withhold salaries through an executive communication.
In a significant reaffirmation of maternity rights, the Court relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, Chandigarh and Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), to hold that maternity benefits are constitutionally protected and cannot be diluted through executive instructions. It quashed the communication and directed the government to pay the petitioners their full salary and allowances for the maternity leave period.
