Maternity and miscarriage leave cannot be denied for insufficient ordinary leave balance.

The respondent, a regular Assistant Grade-II employee of the Food Corporation of India, became pregnant with twins.

One foetus was aborted on 25 April 2019, while the remaining pregnancy was treated as high-risk, ultimately resulting in the premature birth of a female child on 3 September 2019.

She sought leave for the abortion/miscarriage and subsequent maternity, along with reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at a private hospital.

The appellant granted her 68 days of Extra Ordinary Leave without salary, resulting in deductions of Rs.46,332 and Rs.33,932, and only partially allowed her medical reimbursement claim.

The respondent subsequently relied upon the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 2 September 2022 and sought 30 days’ leave for abortion/miscarriage, 60 days’ maternity leave, adjustment of leave already granted, reimbursement of the outstanding medical expenses of Rs.3,76,773, and refund of Rs.80,254 deducted from her salary.

The learned Single Judge partly allowed her writ petition, held her entitled to 90 days’ leave covering maternity and miscarriage, quashed the recovery of Rs.80,254, and directed reconsideration of her medical reimbursement claim.

The Food Corporation of India challenged that order in the present writ appeal.

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in granting the respondent 90 days’ leave covering miscarriage and subsequent maternity, despite the appellant’s contention that the respondent was governed by the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 and the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, and lacked sufficient leave balance?

Whether the Office Memorandum dated 2 September 2022 could confer any benefit in respect of events occurring in 2019, particularly where the appellant contended that it applied only to stillbirth or death of a child soon after birth and not miscarriage?

Whether the quashing of the recovery of Rs.80,254 from the respondent’s salary was legally sustainable?

Whether the direction to reconsider the respondent’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses was justified?

The Court applied the principles governing maternity and miscarriage-related leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, including the statutory recognition of leave for miscarriage and the protection of maternity-related benefits.

It considered the appellant’s reliance on Regulation 23 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 and the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, under which the respondent was stated to be governed.

The Court relied on Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, (2023) 13 SCC 681, for the principle that maternity-related benefits must be interpreted in a manner protecting the health, dignity and welfare of women employees and cannot be defeated merely by technical considerations concerning leave balance.

It further applied the intra-court appellate standard that interference is warranted only for patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, failure to consider material evidence, or other manifest infirmity, and not merely because another view is possible.

The Court held that the respondent’s miscarriage, high-risk subsequent pregnancy and premature delivery had to be considered in the context of the protective purpose of maternity-related leave.

The fact that she had already been granted a period of leave, or that her ordinary leave account lacked sufficient balance, could not by itself defeat her entitlement to maternity and miscarriage-related benefits.

The Court found that the Single Judge had considered the applicable legal principles, including Deepika Singh, and that the appellant had not established any misreading of the record, perversity or patent error of law.

Since the respondent’s entitlement to the relevant leave was upheld, the consequential recovery of Rs.80,254 based on alleged absence of leave balance could not stand.

Regarding medical reimbursement, the Court noted that the Single Judge had not ordered automatic payment of the entire amount claimed, but had only directed a fresh, reasoned determination after verification of the bills and records in accordance with the applicable rules and policies.

Consequently, no ground for appellate interference was made out under the limited intra-court appellate jurisdiction.

The order dated 13 May 2026 in WPS No. 6133 of 2023 was affirmed.

The respondent remained entitled to 90 days’ leave covering maternity and miscarriage; the recovery of Rs.80,254 stood quashed; and the appellant-authorities were required to reconsider the medical reimbursement claim after proper verification and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

There was no order as to costs.