The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has affirmed that maternity leave is not a matter of governmental benevolence but a fundamental constitutional right integral to women’s dignity. This landmark ruling was delivered by Justice Rajnesh Oswal in the case of Dr. Sonakshi Gupta & Ors. v. UT of J&K, where a group of doctors contested a directive that halted their salaries during maternity leave.
The petitioners, who serve as senior residents and tutors in government medical colleges, opposed the October 14, 2025 communication by the Union Territory’s Health and Medical Education Department, which, following advice from the Finance Department, denied them pay and allowances during their maternity leave citing their ‘out of assignment’ status.
Justice Oswal emphasized that once the government has provided maternity leave per its rules, withholding salaries during this period through an executive communication amounts to administrative overreach. The Court categorically stated, “Maternity leave cannot be reduced to a matter of state charity; it is an unassailable constitutional right anchored in the dignity of women.”
The petitioners argued that a 2024 government order explicitly granted maternity leave under existing rules, such as Rule 41(1) of the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979, which ensures paid maternity leave. They referenced a previous High Court ruling in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Tanu Gupta, asserting that financial penalties should not apply to women employees availing maternity leave.
In response, the Jammu and Kashmir administration contended that the petitioners were not regular government employees entitled to paid maternity leave, as they were appointed under the 2020 Academic Arrangement Rules. They argued that the residency extension post-maternity leave was an academic measure and did not warrant salary payment during the leave.
More Read
The High Court dismissed the government’s argument, affirming that the July 8, 2024 order extended maternity leave to senior residents and tutors as per the prevailing rules, thus entitling them to paid leave. The Court relied on precedents, including Supreme Court judgments in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, Chandigarh, and Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), underscoring that maternity benefits are constitutionally protected and cannot be undermined by executive orders.
Consequently, the Court quashed the challenged communication and instructed the government to disburse the petitioners’ full salaries and allowances for their maternity leave period.
Advocate Abhinav Jamwal represented the petitioners, while Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, alongside Advocate Saliqa Sheikh, appeared for the Jammu and Kashmir government.
