The Code on Social Security, 2020 Overrides Financial Handbook Restrictions Regarding Intervals Between Maternity Leaves

The petitioners, two regularly appointed Staff Nurses in the Department of Medical Education, Uttar Pradesh, applied for maternity leave for their second pregnancies

Petitioner No. 1 sought 180 days’ leave starting January 19, 2026, and Petitioner No. 2 sought 180 days’ leave starting January 21, 2026

Respondent No. 3 rejected both applications via orders dated January 9, 2026, and January 6, 2026, respectively

The rejections were based on Rule 153(1) of the U.P. Financial Handbook and a Government Order dated December 8, 2008, which stipulate that a second spell of maternity leave cannot be granted unless two years have elapsed since the expiry of the last maternity leave

Section 161 of the Code on Social Security, 2020, which contains a non-obstante clause ensuring the Code prevails over any inconsistent law or contract

Article 42 of the Constitution of India, which mandates the State to secure just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief

Section 60 of the Code, 2020, which defines the right to maternity benefits without prescribing a minimum time gap between children

The precedent in Dr. Rachna Chaurasiya v. State of U.P. and Smt. Anupam Yadav v. State of U.P., establishing that statutory maternity benefits prevail over restrictive executive instructions in the Financial Handbook

The Court reasoned that the U.P. Financial Handbook rules, framed under the Government of India Act, 1935, hold the status of executive instructions and must yield to Central legislation

Under the constitutional scheme, specifically Entry 24 of List III, the Parliament's enactment of the Code on Social Security, 2020, occupies the field

The Court observed that while Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook imposes a two-year embargo between maternity leaves, the Code, 2020, contains no such restriction

Applying the doctrine of repugnancy and the specific mandate of Section 161 of the Code, the Court held that the statutory right to maternity leave cannot be curtailed by State executive orders

The Court emphasized that maternity relief is a constitutional obligation under Articles 15(3), 39, and 42, and any policy inconsistent with the Central Code is "patently illegal"

The Court quashed the impugned rejection orders dated January 9, 2026, and January 6, 2026, and directed Respondent No. 3 to reconsider the petitioners' applications in accordance with the Code, 2020, which does not require a time gap between pregnancies

The respondent was ordered to complete this exercise within two weeks of receiving fresh applications and the writ petition was allowed