Maternity leave women's constitutional right, not state charity: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court heard doctors challenging a salary stoppage during maternity leave. The court said such leave flows from women's dignity and cannot depend on state charity.

In Short

• Court says paid maternity leave cannot be denied through executive orders
• Women doctors entitled to salaries during maternity leave, High Court rules
• Govt order withholding maternity leave salaries quashed by High Court

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that maternity leave is an unassailable constitutional right rooted in the dignity of women and cannot be treated as a matter of State charity, Bar and Bench reported. Holding that the right to paid maternity leave cannot be taken away through an executive order, the Court quashed a government communication that denied salaries to women doctors during their maternity leave and directed the administration to release their full pay and allowances.

"Maternity leave cannot be reduced to a matter of state charity; it is an unassailable constitutional right anchored in the dignity of women. 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 particular judgment came in a case concerning Dr Sonakshi Gupta, where Justice Rajnesh Oswal examined a petition filed by senior residents and tutors engaged in government medical colleges under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2020.

The petitioners challenged a communication dated October 14, 2025, issued by the Health and Medical Education Department on the advice of the Finance Department, which withheld their salaries during maternity leave on the ground that they were "out of assignment."

The dispute arose after the petitioners were denied pay and allowances during the period of maternity leave despite a government order issued on July 8, 2024, extending maternity leave benefits to senior residents and tutors in accordance with the existing government rules.

The women doctors argued that they had never been informed that availing maternity leave would result in the blocking of pay.

Appearing for the petitioners, counsel contended that the 2024 government order had incorporated the prevailing service rules, which provide for paid maternity leave.

The Union Territory administration opposed the plea, maintaining that the petitioners were tenure-based appointees under the 2020 Academic Arrangement Rules and were not regular government employees entitled to paid maternity leave.

It argued that the extension of their residency after maternity leave was only intended to enable them to complete the prescribed academic training and did not create any entitlement to salary during the leave period.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that the July 8, 2024 government order had unequivocally extended maternity leave to senior residents and tutors in accordance with the prevailing government rules and regulations.

Consequently, the petitioners were entitled not only to maternity leave but also to the salary and allowances attached to it.

The Court further observed that the right to paid maternity leave is an inseparable component of the leave itself and cannot be curtailed through administrative directions. It stressed that once maternity leave is recognised under the applicable rules, withholding wages during that period defeats the very purpose of the benefit.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the October 14, 2025 communication and directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to release the petitioners' full salaries and allowances for the maternity leave period.

Advocate Abhinav Jamwal represented the petitioners, while Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, assisted by Advocate Saliqa Sheikh, appeared for the Union Territory.

The ruling reinforces that maternity benefits are integral to women's constitutional rights and signals that administrative actions inconsistent with those protections will not withstand judicial scrutiny.

- Ends