In the present matter, the petitioner is working as a lecturer in a college and her application for maternity leave was rejected on the ground that she had previously availed maternity leave within a period of less than 2 years and hence was not entitled to the same.

The petitioner applied for maternity leave from November 26, 2017 to May 18, 2018 and gave birth to a baby boy. Unfortunately, the newborn baby passed due to cardiorespiratory arrest just a day after birth. The petitioner conceived again and applied for a maternity leave of 24 weeks from November 18, 2018 to May 16, 2019 which was rejected by the impugned Order.

The Order laid it’s basis on Rule 153(1) of the Financial Handbook which stated that if one avails maternity leave in a period less than 2 years of availing another maternity leave, she will not be entitled to another one.

The Respondent argued that health lay in the state subject and the State Government was fully entitled to legislate under it. The Financial Handbook was enacted under that power.

Section 27 of the Act contains a non-obstante clause and hence it’ll prevail irrespective of whether anything inconsistent was laid down in any other law made before or after when the Act came into force.

The Allahabad High Court held that Article 254 would not be applicable here as the enactments should be of the respective legislatures. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 has been enacted by the Parliament while the provisions under the Financial Handbook are at best executive instructions. It reiterated that the Act has been enacted under entry 24 of List III. Even if the State Legislature were to make such a law overriding the provisions of the Act, it would be reserved for the President’s assent under Article 254(2).

Therefore, the writ petition was allowed and the Respondents were directed to grant maternity benefit to the petitioner in terms of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.