The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh Horticulture and Food Processing Department for denying maternity leave to an employee, despite earlier clear directions of the court. Justice Ajit Kumar, while hearing the plea of Sushila Patel, observed that the authority had acted in complete disregard of judicial orders and may face contempt proceedings.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had earlier applied for her second maternity leave in 2024, which was rejected on the ground that there must be a minimum two-year gap between the first and second pregnancies. She challenged this decision, and on 6 November 2024, the High Court quashed the rejection, citing its earlier ruling in Smt. Guddi v. State of U.P. (2022). In that case, the court had made it clear that the requirement of a two-year gap was not mandatory under service rules.
Read also:- Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Bootlegger in Vadodara
Despite this, when Patel again applied in December 2024 by enclosing the court’s order, the Director of Horticulture once again rejected her application on the same ground. This prompted the High Court to take a stern view.
The judge remarked,
"It is unfortunate that despite repeated directions, the department has failed to appreciate the legal position and has denied maternity leave without any justified reason."
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Orders Corrections in A.T. Goyee Enterprises vs Nand Lal Rathi Case
The court went further to state that such conduct amounted to contempt, as the rejection ignored not only the order passed in November 2024 but also the earlier precedent in 2022. Justice Ajit Kumar directed the Director of Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttar Pradesh to personally appear before the court and explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
Read also:- Madras High Court Forms SIT to Probe Illegal Kidney Transplant Racket in Tamil Nadu
The court reaffirmed that maternity leave is a fundamental right and cannot be curtailed by arbitrary conditions like the two-year pregnancy gap rule. By warning of contempt proceedings, the judgment sends a clear message to government officials that judicial orders must be respected and implemented in letter and spirit.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on 1 September 2025, with the concerned authority required to justify its actions.
Case Title: Sushila Patel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others
Case Number: WRIT - A No. 12191 of 2025
