Facts of the Case

Ms. K completed her MS (General Surgery) from Thanjavur Medical College under the 2016-19 academic session. As per the terms of the prospectus for PG medical admissions, she executed a bond agreeing to serve the Government of Tamil Nadu for two years or refund ₹40 lakhs. After completing her course, she was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon at Thittakudi Government Hospital in 2019. She served for one year and then availed maternity leave. However, when she sought the return of her original educational certificates, the authorities refused, stating that she had completed only 12 months of the mandatory bond period. A writ petition filed by her was dismissed by the Single Judge, prompting this appeal before the Division Bench.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that the 12-month maternity leave should be counted as part of her two-year bond service. She argued that denying this would violate her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, especially in light of judicial precedents that treat maternity benefits as a constitutional entitlement. She further asserted that the State cannot treat her differently just because she was not a permanent employee.

Contentions of the Respondent

The State argued that the bond required two years of actual service, and since the petitioner had served only 12 months actively and remained on leave for the rest, the bond terms had not been fulfilled. Thus, they retained her certificates lawfully. They relied on the literal wording of the bond to justify their decision.

Court’s Observations

The Court held that maternity leave is a constitutionally protected right under Article 21 and must be seen as part of employment, whether or not the employee is permanent. It referred to Supreme Court rulings, including Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, which affirmed that maternity benefits endure even if they extend beyond contractual employment. It emphasized that under Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, all inconsistent contractual terms must give way to statutory rights.

The Court underscored that “the fact that the appellant was only in the service of the government without being a regular employee is irrelevant. When the fundamental right of the appellant is involved, she is entitled to the protective umbrella of not only Article 21 but also Article 14.”

It also poetically quoted Milton: “They also serve who only stand and wait”, affirming that a woman on maternity leave continues to serve the government in legal contemplation.

Court’s Order

The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order and allowed the appeal. It directed the respondents to return Dr. Krithikaa’s original certificates within four weeks. The Court explicitly ruled that the 12-month maternity leave shall be counted as part of her bond period, and she is deemed to have completed the required two years of service.

Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai