The petitioner, Dr. Juhi Manhas, a government employee and commissioning mother, sought maternity leave and consequential leave benefits in respect of her second child born through surrogacy. She had earlier been granted 180 days of maternity leave for her first child, followed by commuted and earned leave. However, her subsequent request for similar benefits was refused on the ground that the State of Himachal Pradesh had not adopted the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Notification dated 18 June 2024, which expressly introduced Rule 43(6) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 concerning surrogate and commissioning mothers.The principal question before the High Court was whether the petitioner could claim maternity leave under Rule 43 of the CCS (Leave) Rules despite the State's non-adoption of the 2024 DoPT notification. The Court also considered the consequential leave availed by the petitioner and the issue of withheld salary.

Legal Issue

Whether a commissioning mother, who has begotten a child through surrogacy, is entitled to maternity leave and consequential leave benefits under Rule 43 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 in the State of Himachal Pradesh, notwithstanding the State's contention that it has not adopted the DoPT Notification dated 18.06.2024 (which inserted sub-rule (6) into Rule 43 expressly covering surrogate and commissioning mothers).

Brief Facts

The petitioner, a government employee, availed maternity leave (180 days) followed by commuted and earned leave as a commissioning mother for her first child (2020–2021) and sought similar leave for her second child from 27.9.2022. The respondent department, through Annexures P-22 (dated 31.7.2025) and P-23 (dated 22.8.2023), refused to grant/regularise her maternity and consequential leave on the ground that the DoPT Notification dated 18.6.2024 - which extended maternity leave to surrogate and commissioning mothers under Rule 43(6) - had not been adopted by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner also sought release of withheld salary for two months and eight days, notwithstanding an earlier order dated 2.7.2024 directing its release. The State additionally contended that the petitioner's conduct (departing on leave via email without following procedure, prompting departmental proceedings) disentitled her to equitable relief, though it was undisputed that she was subsequently exonerated in those proceedings.

Court's Reasoning

• The Court held that Rule 43(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 entitles a female government servant with fewer than two surviving children to 180 days' maternity leave, and Rule 43(4)(a) and (b) permit such leave to be combined with other leave (including commuted leave up to 60 days and leave not due up to two years). The Court found that the State's reliance on non-adoption of the DoPT Notification dated 18.6.2024 was misconceived, since the entitlement of a commissioning mother to maternity leave in Himachal Pradesh had already been conclusively settled independent of that notification.

• The Court relied heavily on the binding precedent of a Division Bench of the same High Court in Sushma Devi v. State of HP & Others, CWP No. 4509 of 2020 (decided 04.03.2021), which had held - drawing on Rama Pandey v. Union of India (Delhi HC), Dr. Mrs. Hema Vijay Menon v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2015 Bombay 231, and Devshree Bandhe v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd. - that distinguishing between a natural mother and a commissioning/surrogate mother for maternity leave purposes would insult womanhood, that motherhood does not end at birth, and that such denial is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution (the right to life including the right to motherhood, per Lakshmi Kant Pandey).

• Since this Division Bench ruling had attained finality and was binding on the State, the Court held that a female government employee in Himachal Pradesh - commissioning or surrogate mother - already stood entitled to maternity leave under Rule 43(1) at par with any other female employee, making adoption of the 2024 DoPT notification wholly unnecessary. The Court further noted the State's own inconsistency having granted 180 days' child adoption leave under Rule 43-B (inserted via Notification dated 10.10.2022) to adoptive mothers, it could not coherently deny equivalent maternity leave to commissioning/surrogate mothers.

Judgment

The writ petition was allowed. The respondents were directed to treat the 180-day period availed by the petitioner after each child's birth as maternity leave, with further leave availed immediately thereafter treated as leave due under Rule 43(4)(a) and (b); the 32 days' earned leave availed between 4.5.2022 and 4.6.2022 was to be adjusted against her due earned leave; and her withheld salary was directed to be released , all within two months.

Legal Significance

The judgment reaffirms and applies binding Division Bench precedent (Sushma Devi) holding that commissioning and surrogate mothers are entitled to maternity leave on the same footing as biological mothers under Rule 43(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, clarifying that this entitlement does not depend on a State's formal adoption of the 2024 DoPT notification, since the constitutional and statutory principle was already settled and binding. It reinforces that administrative authorities cannot revive settled legal questions to deny benefits, particularly where the State's own parallel rules (child adoption leave) reveal an inconsistent approach to similarly situated employees.

Link to Official Judgement here

Case Title

Dr. Juhi Manhas v. State of H.P. & Ors.

Case Number

CWP No. 14883 of 2025

Citation

2026HHC32083

Court

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Bench

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Date of Judgment

3 August 2026