$~47 
* IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI 
+  W.P.(C) 17026/2025 & CM APPL. 70021/2025 
 
 PANKAJ KUMARI     .....Petitioner 
Through: Mr. Vivek Sheel, Ms. Deepshikha Anshul Mahajan, Advs.  
 
    versus 
 
 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.        .....Respondents 
Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Mr. Mohammad Junaid Mahmood, .Ms. Prajna Pandita, Advs. for R1 to 4.  
 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA 
    ORDER(ORAL) 
%        11.11.2025 
 
C. HARI SHANKAR, J  
 
1. The petitioner’s main grievance in this writ petition is against Rule 43 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 to the extent it restricts the facility of maternity leave to two children.  


 
2. The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case K. Umadevi v Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors1.  


1 (2025) 8 SCC 263 
 
3. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreeable ad idem for a 


disposal of this writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the writ petition as a representation and take a decision thereon, specifically keeping in mind the principles enunciated in K. Umadevi.  


 
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.  


 
5. Let the decision in the aforesaid terms be taken within three weeks and communicated to learned Counsel for the petitioner.  


 
6. Ms. Rudy also agrees that the petitioner’s application for leave, keeping in view the fact that she is in her seventh month of pregnancy, would also be re-considered by her department.  


 
7. Till a decision on the application is taken, no adverse action would be taken against the petitioner.  


 
8. Needless to say, should the petitioner continued to remain aggrieved, it will be open to the petitioner to revive this petition with an appropriate application.  


 
 
 
C. HARI SHANKAR, J 
 
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J 
 NOVEMBER 11, 2025/AT