SRINAGAR: In a significant ruling reinforcing maternity rights, the Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a government communication that denied pay and allowances to Senior Residents and Tutors during maternity leave, holding that the State cannot penalise women doctors for motherhood. The court directed the Union Territory administration to release full salary and allowances for the maternity leave period as well as for the extended residency period corresponding to the leave availed.
The judgment was delivered on July 10, 2026, by Justice Rajnesh Oswal of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in WP(C) No. 3509/2025, Dr Sonakshi Gupta and Others vs Union Territory of JK and Others. The case had been reserved for judgment on July 6, 2026.
The court struck down the Health and Medical Education Department’s communication dated October 14, 2025, which, acting on the Finance Department’s advice, had denied salaries to Senior Residents and Tutors during maternity leave on the ground that they remained “out of assignment” while on leave.
Opening the judgment with strong observations, Justice Oswal said the respondents had acted in “a glaring departure from its character as a compassionate welfare State” by seeking to penalise women for “the foundational human experience of motherhood.”
The court observed that maternity benefits are an extension of a woman’s constitutional right to live with dignity and held that depriving women doctors of their salaries during one of the most vulnerable phases of their lives amounted to “a profound constitutional injury.”
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 petitioners argued that Government Order No. 451-JK(HME) of 2024, issued on July 8, 2024, expressly granted maternity, Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) and abortion leave to Senior Residents and Tutors in accordance with existing government rules and regulations. They contended that Rule 41(1) of the JK Civil Services (Leave) Rules entitled women employees to 180 days of maternity leave with leave salary equal to their last drawn pay.
Although the government order also provided for an extension of the residency period by the number of leave days availed, the doctors argued that the administration had never indicated that maternity leave would be unpaid. However, after some of the petitioners proceeded on maternity leave, their salaries were stopped solely on the basis of the October 14, 2025 communication.
The government defended its decision by arguing that the petitioners were not regular government employees but tenure-based appointees under the Academic Arrangement Rules, 2020. It maintained that the extension of residency was intended only to ensure completion of mandatory training and did not entitle them to salary during the leave period.
Rejecting the government’s stand, Justice Oswal held that the 2024 government order specifically adopted the existing government rules governing maternity leave and that these necessarily included the statutory entitlement to paid maternity leave.
The court ruled that the Finance Department’s communication could not be treated as a mere clarification but amounted to “a blatant administrative overreach.”
“It is evident that the Finance Department, in its anxiety to prune public spending, has lost sight of constitutional bounds,” the court observed.
The judgment further held that discriminating against women doctors merely because they were appointed on tenure rather than regular basis violated the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Justice Oswal also relied on a recent Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. vs Tanu Gupta, which held that contractual women employees cannot be denied maternity benefits available to regular employees. The judgment, in turn, relied upon Supreme Court decisions including Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), Deepika Singh v. PGIMER Chandigarh, and Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), all emphasising that maternity benefits are intended to protect women’s dignity and ensure their continued participation in the workforce.
The court held that maternity leave “cannot be reduced to a matter of state charity” but is “an unassailable constitutional right anchored in the dignity of women.”
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the October 14, 2025 communication insofar as it denied pay and allowances during maternity leave and directed the government to grant full pay and allowances during maternity leave as well as during the extended period of residency corresponding to the leave period.
