Remanded

Priyanka Rani v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2025WRIA/16648/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of a writ petition challenging an order denying maternity benefit leave for a Junior Assistant who conceived via IVF. The court held that IVF is a widely accepted procedure and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.09.2025 set aside; matter remitted to authority to pass a fresh order in strict accordance with law.

Priyanka Rani vs State of Up and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 16648 of 2025

Priyanka Rani

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Up And 2 Others

¶7

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, Rehan Waris
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 34

¶9

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Rehan Waris, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has made a statement at Bar that he does not propose to file any affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

¶12

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

¶13

The case of the writ petitioner is that the marriage of the writ petitioner stood solemnized with one Vipin Kumar on 17.02.2010 and consequent to death of the husband of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was granted appointment as Junior Assistant on 19.08.2019. Since the couple was issueless and the writ petitioner was all alone, so the writ petitioner with the aid of IVF was blessed with a baby. The writ petitioner thereafter sought maternity leave from 03.10.2024 to 10.01.2025 and since the same was not being accorded, thus the writ petitioner preferred Writ-A No. 6315 of 2025, Priyanka Rani vs. State of U.P. and others, which came to be disposed of requiring the respondents to decide the claim of the writ petitioner. Thereafter, now, the Executive Engineer, Meerut, Khand Ganga Nahar, Meerut had proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.09.2025 negating the claim of the writ petitioner.

¶14

Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶15

WRIA No. 16648 of 2025

¶16

¶17

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, confers right to payment of Maternity benefits. Submission is that IVF is not a thing which is not widely acclaimed and accepted. As a matter of fact, IVF is a mode and method, pursuant whereto, a parent can get the benefit of a love of the child. He submits the considerations which weighed the authority in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner is pre-posterous, as the same is not prohibited in any manner whatsoever. According to him, the matter needs to be revisited.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the order in question has not taken into consideration the relevant aspect being Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and also the claim that a baby born from IVF also commands the equal status and honour as of a normal baby, through cesarean or normal pregnancy.

¶19

I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully.

¶20

Apparently, the order impugned negates the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that there is no guidelines or directions to grant such benefits with regard to a baby born through IVF, and thus, Maternity Benefit Leave cannot be accorded.

¶21

In the opinion of the Court, the considerations which weighed the authority in rejecting the claim of the writ petition cannot be sustained, as IVF is a widely accepted procedure and a method for birth of a baby.

¶22

Accordingly, the order dated 29.09.2025 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

¶23

With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶24

November 10, 2025

¶25

N.S.Rathour

¶26

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Priyanka Rani v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Rani v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nav Prayas and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Shami Ashraf vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Satendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Vishal Babu, Constable vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Prajapati vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others