Maternity Leave for Child Born Before Joining: Rajasthan HC

Maternity Leave Cannot Be Denied Because the Child Was Born Before Joining Service: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court held that a woman government employee cannot be refused maternity leave under Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 only because her child was born before she joined service. The Rule turns on her being a female Government servant with less than two surviving children, not on the date of birth (para 24). The Court quashed the orders treating her 142 days' absence as unpaid leave and deferring her confirmation (paras 47-50).

Key holdings

Rule 103 has no nexus with the date of childbirth (para 24).

Paternity leave under Rule 103A is tied to the wife's confinement; maternity leave under Rule 103 is not (paras 25-26).

Refusing maternity leave because the child was born before joining is arbitrary and discriminatory (paras 28, 30).

The State cannot press a technical delay plea against a timely claim that affects no third party, especially when it caused the delay (paras 37-38, 41).

A woman joining within 15 days before to three months after childbirth may avail maternity leave though the child was born before joining (para 52).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner gave birth by caesarean section on 15.05.2016, was appointed a Physical Training Instructor, Grade-III, on 04.06.2016 and joined on 06.06.2016 (paras 2-4). On 21.06.2016 she applied for maternity leave and stayed away 142 days, until 10.11.2016 (paras 5-6). Only on 13.08.2018 and 17.07.2019 did the department sanction the 142 days, all without pay and 52 of them as extraordinary leave, and by order of 21.11.2019 her probation was extended by 112 days (paras 7-9). The State pleaded delay and contended that Rule 103 covers only a child born after the mother becomes a Government servant, relying on Sweety Devi (paras 14-19).

Court's Findings

Rule 103 has no link with the date or event of childbirth and requires only that the woman be a Government servant with less than two surviving children (para 24). Rule 103A, by contrast, ties paternity leave to the wife's confinement, 15 days before to three months after childbirth, so the date of birth matters only for fathers (paras 25-26). The words ‘from the date of its commencement’ show that, when the Rule was inserted on 06.12.2004, it reached employees who had already given birth; excluding a mother who delivered a few days before joining would be iniquitous and discriminatory (paras 27-28). If a woman needs leave for natal needs and child care when she applies, it cannot be denied; the contrary distinction was arbitrary (paras 29-30). The delay objection failed: the leave application lay unanswered for two years and the writ petition was filed within six months of the order of 21.11.2019 (paras 33-36, 41). Harshita Yadav was not per incuriam merely because it did not refer to Rule 103 (para 44). Sweety Devi was distinguished, as the Punjab rule ties leave to the date of confinement, an expression Rule 103 does not use (paras 45-46).

Legal Principle

Under Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, maternity leave depends on the applicant being a female Government servant with less than two surviving children, not on when the child was born; a woman joining within the confinement period, 15 days before to three months after childbirth, is entitled to it (paras 24, 52).

Precedents Relied Upon

Harshita Yadav v. State of Raj. & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11833/2014, Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), decided on 19.05.2017
Explained Discussed at ¶ 13, 16, 43, 44
Cited by the petitioner: maternity leave allowed although the child was born before joining service. The State said it rested only on the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 without Rule 103; the Court held it is not per incuriam for that reason and, having now considered Rule 103, rejected the respondents' stand.
Sweety Devi v. Pt. B.D. Sharma, University of Health and Sciences, Rohtak S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9385/2017, Punjab and Haryana High Court, decided on 04.05.2017
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 19, 45, 46
Relied on by the State: maternity leave refused because the confinement preceded joining. Distinguished: Rule 8.127(a) of the Punjab Service Rules ties leave to the date of confinement, an expression absent from Rule 103; the Court also disagreed with equating the date of birth with the date of confinement.
Kaluram Sitaram v. The Dominion of India AIR 1954 BOMBAY 50
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 39
When the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities and, if the claim is just, should act as an honest person; applied to the State's plea of delay.

View all precedents (4)

Port Trust v. Hymanshu International (1979) 4 SCC 176
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 39
Governments and public authorities should not ordinarily take technical pleas such as limitation to defeat legitimate claims of citizens; applied to the State's plea of delay and laches.