Facts of the Case

The petitioner was empanelled as a Clinic Assistant under the Aam Aadmi Clinic, City Raman, District Bathinda. On 16 May 2023, she submitted a request to the Nodal Officer for maternity leave from 20 June 2023 to 20 August 2023. The request was forwarded by the Senior Medical Officer for sanction, and on oral orders of the Civil Surgeon, she proceeded on leave. She gave birth to a baby girl on 1 July 2023 and was discharged from the hospital on 3 July 2023. Upon recovery, she sought to re-join her duties. However, by letter dated 4 August 2023, her request to resume work was denied. Later, during the court proceedings, the State counsel, on instructions from her senior, submitted that she was subsequently allowed to re-join.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner sought quashing of the letter/order dated 3 August 2023, which had denied her re-joining. She contended that she was entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, notwithstanding her contractual employment status. She argued that the denial amounted to discrimination solely based on the nature of her employment, which violated the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14.

Contentions of the Respondent

The State counsel submitted that while the petitioner was initially denied permission to re-join, she was subsequently allowed to resume work. The State did not dispute the applicability of the Maternity Benefit Act but relied on the fact that the denial had been rectified.

Court’s Observations

Justice Aman Chaudhary referred to Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which overrides inconsistent laws, agreements, or service contracts, and preserves more favourable benefits available to women employees. The Court also cited Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) [(2000) 3 SCC 244], holding that the Act applies to contract and daily wage workers, and Dr. Kavita Yadav v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department [(2024) 1 SCC 421], which extended full maternity benefits to fixed-term employees even beyond their contractual tenure. The Court observed that the Maternity Benefit Act is a beneficial legislation enacted in line with Articles 39 and 42 of the Constitution to protect the rights of working women during pregnancy and motherhood. It emphasised that discrimination based on the nature of employment, regular or contractual would violate Article 14’s guarantee of equality before law and equal protection of laws.

Court’s Order

The High Court allowed the petition, holding that denial of maternity leave to a contractual employee under the Maternity Benefit Act is impermissible and discriminatory. It quashed the impugned letter/order dated 3 August 2023 and reiterated that all women employees, irrespective of the nature of their appointment, are entitled to maternity benefits as per law.

Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai