The Bombay High Court (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur) allowed the writ petition and directed the State authorities to grant and pay maternity benefit for 131 days’ leave to the petitioner, a temporary Assistant Professor, holding that denial of maternity leave on the ground of technical breaks in service was arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
The petitioner, Dr. Vrushali Vasant Yadav, aged 34, working as an Assistant Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) at Rajarshree Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Government Medical College, Kolhapur, filed the writ petition seeking a direction to grant/extend maternity leave benefits for the period 8 May 2021 to 16 September 2021 (131 days), as demanded in her application dated 28 May 2021. She claimed that, despite continuous service since 21 September 2018 and meeting the conditions under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, her maternity leave was treated as leave without pay and the benefit amount of about Rs. 4,36,666 remained unpaid.
The petitioner has worked continuously and uninterruptedly since her appointment, except for periodic “technical breaks” of one or two days after 120 days, used administratively for temporary appointees. The maternity leave period from 8 May 2021 to 16 September 2021 as per her application was sanctioned as leave but treated as leave without pay.
As of the hearing on 16 December 2025, no reply had been filed by the Respondent-State despite “ample opportunities,” and the Court decided the petition on merits based on the uncontroverted facts. On the merits, the State’s position, as seen from internal communication, indicated that women professors/assistant professors working on temporary 120/360-day terms with “technical breaks” were not being granted maternity benefits.
The Division Bench comprising Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar examined Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which entitles every woman who has actually worked for at least eighty days in the twelve months preceding the expected delivery to maternity benefit at the rate of average daily wage for the period immediately preceding and following delivery, up to the statutory maximum (26 weeks, with a shorter limit for women with two or more children).
The Court held that the petitioner plainly met these requirements, having worked continuously since 2018 and well beyond eighty days before her expected delivery. The Court further clarified that technical breaks of one or two days did not alter the substantive continuity of her employment.
The Court emphasised that the Maternity Benefit Act is a beneficial legislation and that even temporary or daily-wage women workers are entitled to maternity benefits. The Court concluded that denying maternity benefits solely because of technical breaks is “completely arbitrary and unjust” and contrary to the object of the Act.
Allowing the writ petition, the Bench directed the respondents to pay the amount claimed within four weeks from the date of the judgment. It further ordered that, if the amount is not paid within this period, it shall carry interest at 9% per annum until actual disbursement. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to list the matter on 19 January 2026 for reporting compliance.
Cases referred to:
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), AIR 2000 SC 1274
2. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Badri Mali, (1964) 3 SCR 724
Appearances:
Mr. Kedar Lad, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. T.J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
