Srinagar: Holding that maternity benefits are a constitutional right and not a matter of state charity, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside a government communication that denied pay and allowances to senior resident doctors during maternity leave.
The court directed the Union Territory administration to release their full salary for the leave period as well as the corresponding extension of their residency.
The judgment came on a petition filed by Dr Sonakshi Gupta and other senior residents and tutors engaged under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2020.
The petitioners challenged a communication issued on October 14, 2025, which, acting on the Finance Department’s advice, withheld salaries during maternity leave on the ground that the doctors were “out of assignment.”
Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that the communication was inconsistent with Government Order No. 451-JK(HME) of 2024, which extends maternity leave to senior residents and tutors in accordance with existing government rules.
The court said that once maternity leave had been recognised under the government order, the accompanying right to full pay and allowances could not be taken away through an executive communication.
The petitioners argued that while the 2024 government order granted maternity leave and provided for extension of the residency period by the number of days of leave availed, their salaries were subsequently stopped without notice.
The government, however, maintained that the petitioners held tenure-based academic appointments rather than regular civil posts and, therefore, were not entitled to benefits available to permanent government employees.
Rejecting the government’s stand, the court held that Rule 41(1) of the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, providing for 180 days of maternity leave with full leave salary, applied to the petitioners through the 2024 government order.
It observed that the Finance department’s clarification amounted to an administrative overreach and could not override an existing government policy.
In its judgment, the court said penalising women financially for availing maternity leave violated constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
It relied on an earlier Division Bench ruling in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. vs Tanu Gupta, as well as Supreme Court decisions in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Deepika Singh vs PGIMER, which underline that maternity benefits are intended to ensure women are not forced to choose between motherhood and employment.
Allowing the petition, the court quashed the October 14, 2025 communication to the extent that it denied pay and allowances during maternity leave. It directed the Health and Medical Education Department to release full salary and allowances to the petitioners for the maternity leave period and the extended residency period corresponding to the leave.
