WRIA/5002/2026 of SMT NEETU Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 5002 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. This Court has passed following order on 09.04.2026: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2&3. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the respondent no.3 as well as further prayer to direct the respondents to allow maternity leave to the petitioner for which she is entitled.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by means of filing Writ- A No. 1944 of 2026 (Smt. Neetu vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), which was disposed of by order dated 10.02.2026. The order under challenge was the rejection of the maternity leave application without disclosing any reason for the same. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, this Court had directed the District Basic Education Officer, Bagpat, to consider the application of the petitioner in view of the settled law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20178 of 2022), and by this Court in the case of Smt. Neelam Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 45265 of 2011, Neutral Citation No.- 2015:AHC:60329. However, the impugned order dated 28.03.2026 has been passed without understanding the order of this Court and the settled position of law. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sachin Malik Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, C.S.C. Smt Neetu .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) This Court is of the opinion that the District Basic Education Officer, Bagpat, being a District Level Officer, should be well aware of the settled position of law, especially when a direction referencing the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, has already been mentioned in the earlier order. In view of the above, this Court is left with no option but to call upon respondent No. 3, i.e., the District Basic Education Officer, Bagpat, to be present before this Court on the next date fixed to explain his conduct by way of filing personal affidavit. Put up this case on 20.04.2026, as fresh. Registrar Compliance as well as Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall ensure the compliance of this order.” 2. Today, Mrs. Geeta Chaudhary, District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat, has appeared and extended apology. She submits that the order impugned in this writ petition is withdrawn by a subsequent order dated 17.04.2026 and a fresh order has been passed whereby grievance of petitioner for maternity leave is addressed. A personal affidavit to this effect is taken on record. 3. In aforesaid circumstances, even in absence of learned counsel for petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of after taking note of aforesaid apology and subsequent orders. April 20, 2026 AK WRIA No. 5002 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)