Allahabad HC: Code on Social Security 2020 Prevails Over U.P. Financial Handbook Rule on Maternity Leave Gap

Two Staff Nurses were denied second-pregnancy maternity leave under a U.P. rule requiring a two-year gap; the Allahabad High Court has now set those rejections aside.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a writ petition decided at the admission stage itself, has held that the Code on Social Security, 2020, enacted by Parliament, overrides the executive instructions contained in Rule 153(1) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules in the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4. The Court set aside orders by which two regularly appointed Staff Nurses under the U.P. Department of Medical Education were denied 180-day maternity leave for their second pregnancies solely because two years had not elapsed since their earlier maternity leave. Justice Siddharth Nandan, sitting singly at Court No. 6, found that the Code, 2020 imposes no such time-gap requirement, and that Section 161 of the Code expressly provides that its provisions shall prevail over any inconsistent law.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The two petitioners — Smt. Shikha Yadav and the second petitioner — are regularly appointed Staff Nurses/Nursing Officers under the Department of Medical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Both had previously availed 180 days of maternity leave in early 2024.

Petitioner No. 1 was granted maternity leave from 29 January 2024 to 27 July 2024 by Office Order dated 12 February 2024. She again became pregnant, with an expected delivery date of 12 January 2026, and applied on 5 January 2026 for 180 days of maternity leave from 19 January 2026 to 17 July 2026. Respondent No. 3 rejected that application by order dated 9 January 2026 on the ground that two years had not passed since the earlier leave, relying on the Government Order dated 8 December 2008 and Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook.

Petitioner No. 2 had been granted maternity leave from 15 January 2024 to 12 July 2024 by Office Order dated 27 January 2024. She applied on 24 December 2025 for 180 days of maternity leave from 21 January 2026. That application was similarly rejected by order dated 6 January 2026, on the same basis.

Both petitioners challenged these orders under Article 226, seeking certiorari to quash the rejection orders and a mandamus directing grant of the leave with all consequential service benefits.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Rule 153(1) of Chapter XIII of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, contained in the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4, governs the maternity leave entitlement of regular State Government servants, or whether the Code on Social Security, 2020 — a Central enactment — prevails over that rule in the event of any inconsistency.

Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook, as read with the Government Order dated 8 December 2008, prohibited the grant of a second spell of maternity leave within two years of the last spell availed. The Code, 2020, which was enacted on 28 September 2020 to amend and consolidate nine Central labour enactments relating to social security including the erstwhile Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, contains no such time-gap requirement between two pregnancies.

The State, through the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, did not file a counter affidavit, treating the question as purely one of law. The matter was decided at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Siddharth Nandan began by situating the dispute within the constitutional framework. Articles 38, 39, 42 and 43, forming part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, together mandate the State to promote a social order informed by social, economic and political justice, to protect the health and strength of workers, and to secure just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. Article 15 additionally prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex and permits special provisions for women and children. The Court read these provisions as creating a constitutional obligation to provide, not curtail, maternity benefits.

The Court then addressed the legal character of the Financial Handbook rules. The Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4 was framed by the Governor in exercise of powers under Section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and continues in force by virtue of Article 313 of the Constitution. The Court held that such rules, at best, have the nature of executive instructions and cannot be treated as legislative enactments.

Against that, Parliament enacted the Code, 2020 in exercise of its legislative powers under Entry 24 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. Section 161 of the Code, 2020 contains an overriding clause in explicit terms: “The provisions of this Code shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.” The Court also noted the proviso to Section 161, which protects more favourable benefits under any other instrument, but found that the Financial Handbook rule — by imposing a two-year embargo — was less favourable to the employees, not more.

The Court examined Section 2(43), Section 60, and Section 62 of the Code, 2020 in detail. Section 60 entitles every woman to maternity benefit for a maximum period of 26 weeks (or 12 weeks for a woman with two or more surviving children), calculated at the average daily wage, subject to having worked for at least 80 days in the preceding 12 months. The entire scheme, the Court found, contains no stipulation prescribing any time gap between the first and second pregnancy. There is simply no embargo of the kind that Rule 153(1) and the Government Order of 2008 sought to impose.

On the State's argument, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel relied on the coordinate bench decision in Renu Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Others, reported at 2022 (2) ADJ 14, which had held that there was no conflict between the second proviso to Rule 153 and the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 in the context of employees of institutions established and maintained by the U.P. Basic Education Board. The Court distinguished that judgment on its facts: Renu Chaudhary had proceeded on the basis that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 did not apply to establishments of the Basic Education Board. The petitioners before the Court are regular State Government employees under the Department of Medical Education, placing their claim on an entirely different footing.

The Court also drew support from its earlier judgment dated 21 October 2022 in Smt. Anupam Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Writ-A No. 9535 of 2022), which had itself considered the ratio of the Division Bench decision in Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. and Others, reported at 2017 (11) ADJ 399 (DB). In Anupam Yadav, Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook had been read down by the coordinate bench in relation to maternity benefits for a second pregnancy. The Court acknowledged that those decisions were given under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, but held that the relevant provisions of the Code, 2020 are pari materia with those of the 1961 Act, the 1961 Act itself having been subsumed into the Code, 2020. The reasoning therefore remained squarely applicable.

The Court further noted that the State Government had, by its own Government Order dated 11 April 2011, adopted the Central Government's policy on maternity leave and child care leave — a policy that was framed with reference to the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and which did not contain the two-year embargo. That adoption, the Court found, itself demonstrated the State Government's intent to move away from the restrictive position in the 2008 Government Order.

On the constitutional question of supremacy, the Court observed that where Parliament legislates on a List III subject and a State instrument is inconsistent with it, that instrument must yield. Executive instructions, being of a lower order than legislation, cannot override a parliamentary enactment, let alone a Code that carries its own express non-obstante clause.

Outcome

The Court held that the Code on Social Security, 2020 shall prevail over any executive instructions, including Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Parts 2 to 4. The two-year embargo on a second spell of maternity leave, contained in the Government Order dated 8 December 2008 and Rule 153(1), cannot be permitted to override or curtail the benefits conferred under the Code, 2020.

Both impugned orders — the order dated 9 January 2026 rejecting Petitioner No. 1's application (Letter No. 159/E.C.-2/2026) and the order dated 6 January 2026 rejecting Petitioner No. 2's application — were set aside.

The Court directed that if the petitioners submit fresh applications for benefits available under the Code, 2020, and if those benefits are permissible for the period claimed, Respondent No. 3 shall take an appropriate decision on such applications in accordance with the observations and the law laid down in the judgment. That exercise is to be completed preferably within two weeks from the date of filing of the applications along with a certified copy of the order.

The writ petition was allowed.