<\/p>\n
Overview<\/b><\/p>\n
In this case, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh examined whether Senior Residents and Tutors working in government medical colleges should be denied salary during the maternity leave, despite being granted leave under the government policy applicable at that time.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n An administrative communication that withheld pay and allowances for maternity leave period was challenged in this petition. The principal issue to be dealt with by the Court was whether the maternity leave could be treated as a leave without pay only because the petitioners were serving on fixed-term academic appointments.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Facts of the Case<\/b><\/p>\n The petitioners were appointed as Senior Residents and Tutors under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical and Dental Education(Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2020. During their tenure, they availed maternity leave in terms of Government Order No. 451-JK (HME) of 2024. The order basically extended maternity leave benefits to Senior Residents and postgraduate medical students in line with the National Medical Commission guidelines.<\/span><\/p>\n Despite granting the leave, the petitioner\u2019s salaries were withheld by the authorities on the basis of a communication which was issued in October 2025, after the advice from the Finance Department. The respondents stated that the petitioners were \u201cout of assignment\u201d during maternity leave and were not entitled to salary for that period, being tenure-based appointees.<\/span><\/p>\n This decision was challenged by the petitioners before the High Court, while contending that once the maternity leave had been sanctioned under the Government Order, withholding pay goes against the very purpose of granting the benefit. It was further submitted that the extension of the residency period was only to compensate for the period which was spent on maternity leave, and it could not be treated as a ground to deny their legitimate emoluments.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal Issues<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Decision<\/b><\/p>\n The High Court allowed the writ petition and the communication dated 14 October 2025 was quashed, insofar as it denied pay and allowances during maternity relief.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court held that a maternity benefit is not merely a concession granted by the State, but it is a legal entitlement which is intended to protect the dignity of a working woman. Once the Government itself extended maternity relief benefits through the 2024 order, it could not subsequently deny the financial benefits attached to that leave.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Relying on earlier judgments, it was observed by the Court that childbirth is a natural incident of life and maternity benefits must receive a proper interpretation that advances gender justice rather than defeating it.<\/span><\/p>\n It was further held that the respondents could not discriminate against the petitioners only because they were serving on tenure-based appointments.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Accordingly, the respondents were directed by the Court to release full pay and allowances for the entire period of maternity leave as well as for the extended period of residency, and disposed of the petition.<\/span><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dr. Sonakshi Gupta and Ors.\u200b\u00a0 [Petitioner(s)] Vs.\u00a0 UT of J&K and others. [Respondent(s)] WP(C) No. 3509\/2025 (O&M) (SJB, Rajnesh Oswal, J.) Overview In this case, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh examined whether Senior Residents and Tutors working in government medical colleges should be denied salary during the maternity leave, despite […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3844,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3842"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3842\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3851,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3842\/revisions\/3851"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3844"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n