The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that women doctors cannot be denied salaries during maternity leave once leave is granted under service rules. The Court ruled maternity benefits are constitutional rights flowing from dignity, equality and reproductive autonomy, not government charity.
In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional protection available to working women, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that women doctors cannot be denied salaries during maternity leave once the government has extended such leave under its service rules. The Court observed that maternity benefits are not a matter of governmental generosity but flow directly from the constitutional guarantee of dignity, equality and reproductive rights.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Rajnesh Oswal allowed a petition filed by several doctors serving in government medical colleges and quashed a government communication that had stopped payment of their salaries during maternity leave.
The Court ruled that after granting maternity leave under the applicable rules, the government could not subsequently deny salary for that period through an executive communication.
Emphasising the constitutional significance of maternity benefits, the Court observed:
“Maternity leave cannot be reduced to a matter of state charity; it is an unassailable constitutional right anchored in the dignity of women. The respondents, having explicitly absorbed the existing Government Rules vide order dated 08.07.2024 to grant maternity leave to these Doctors, cannot now blow hot and cold by withholding their salaries. The right to full emoluments is an organic corollary of the right to leave itself, which cannot be defeated by an arbitrary executive fiat.”
The Court described the impugned government action as an instance of administrative overreach, holding that executive instructions cannot override statutory service rules or constitutional guarantees.
The petition was filed by a group of Senior Residents and Tutors appointed under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2020.
The doctors challenged a communication dated October 14, 2025, issued by the Union Territory’s Health and Medical Education Department on the advice of the Finance Department, whereby they were denied salary and allowances for the period they remained on maternity leave.
The government justified the decision by stating that the petitioners remained “out of assignment” during maternity leave and were therefore not entitled to receive remuneration for that duration. Aggrieved by the decision, the doctors approached the High Court seeking restoration of their salaries.
Arguments of Parties
Before the Court, the petitioners argued that the government itself had issued an order on July 8, 2024, expressly extending the benefit of maternity leave to doctors appointed under the Academic Arrangement Rules. According to them, the order specifically provided that maternity leave would be governed by the existing Government Rules, and at no stage were they informed that availing maternity leave would result in forfeiture of salary.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2024 order incorporated the provisions of Rule 41(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979, which provides for paid maternity leave.
The petitioners also relied upon the High Court’s earlier decision in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Tanu Gupta, where it had been held that a woman employee cannot be placed at a financial disadvantage merely because she exercises her statutory right to maternity leave.
The Jammu and Kashmir administration opposed the petition, arguing that the doctors were not regular government employees, but were engaged on a tenure basis under the Academic Arrangement Rules of 2020. According to the government, although maternity leave had been extended to the petitioners, that did not automatically entitle them to salary during the leave period.
The administration further argued that the extension of residency granted after maternity leave merely enabled the doctors to complete the prescribed duration of academic training and residency. Such extension, it contended, could not be construed as recognition of a right to receive salary during the leave period.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court rejected the arguments advanced by the administration. Justice Oswal observed that the government order dated July 8, 2024, clearly made the prevailing government rules applicable to Senior Residents and Tutors with respect to maternity leave.
Once those rules had been adopted, the government could not selectively deny one of their most important consequences—the payment of salary during the leave period. The Court held that the entitlement to maternity leave necessarily carries with it the entitlement to receive full pay and allowances unless the governing rules expressly provide otherwise.
The Court concluded that the executive communication issued in October 2025 could not override the statutory framework already adopted by the government.
While delivering the judgment, Justice Oswal extensively referred to the constitutional principles governing maternity benefits and reproductive rights. The Court relied upon several landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, including:
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll);
- Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, Chandigarh; and
- Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Drawing support from these decisions, the Court observed that maternity benefits form an integral part of a woman’s constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment reiterates that maternity leave is intended not merely to protect employment but also to safeguard the health, dignity, bodily autonomy and reproductive choices of women employees. The Court held that such constitutional protections cannot be diluted through administrative instructions or executive communications.
Read Also: Maternity Leave for Government Employees| Delhi HC Urges Centre to Review 2-Child Policy
The Court further observed that once the government consciously adopted the existing leave rules through its own order, it became bound by those rules. An executive communication issued subsequently could not nullify the rights already conferred upon women employees.
Justice Oswal held that permitting the government to withdraw salary while simultaneously recognising maternity leave would amount to taking inconsistent positions, something impermissible in law. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the impugned communication was arbitrary and unsustainable.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the communication dated October 14, 2025, by which salaries had been withheld. The Court directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to release full salary and all admissible allowances to the petitioner-doctors for the entire period of maternity leave.
The judgment reinforces that maternity leave cannot be treated as unpaid absence where the governing service rules expressly provide otherwise and that women employees cannot be financially penalised for exercising their constitutionally protected maternity rights.
Advocate Abhinav Jamwal appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, assisted by Advocate Saliqa Sheikh, represented the Jammu and Kashmir administration.
Case Title: Dr. Sonakshi Gupta & Ors. v. UT of J&K
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE