Quashing the rejection of a consultant’s maternity leave request, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur Bench has directed 180 days’ maternity benefits with admissible remuneration, noting that the entire period claimed fell within her contractual tenure. The Court ruled that the nature of employment cannot, by itself, defeat maternity benefits where the applicable statutory eligibility requirements are fulfilled.
Emphasising that maternity protection is more than an ordinary leave concession, the Court recognised its role in protecting women’s health, dignity and livelihood during pregnancy and after childbirth, supported by the constitutional mandate for maternity relief under Article 42 of the Constitution. Accordingly, any contractual condition inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, is subject to the overriding effect of Section 27.
The Court found that the authorities relied on Condition No. 5 without independently determining the petitioner’s statutory eligibility. As the entire leave period fell within her contractual tenure, the denial could not stand. Accordingly, the Court quashed the rejection and directed maternity benefits from Dec 26, 2022, with admissible remuneration under the applicable statutory provisions, within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
Briefly, Shivangi Khandelwal was engaged as a Consultant (AEE) on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 40,000 per month for one year, from Aug 04, 2022, to Aug 03, 2023. She sought six months’ maternity leave beginning on Dec 26, 2022. Her request was rejected, relying solely on Condition No. 5 of her appointment order, which allowed only declared State Government holidays and prohibited additional leave. She challenged the rejection before the Rajasthan High Court. The entire maternity leave period sought by her fell within her initial contractual tenure.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bipin Gupta observed that maternity benefit is not merely an ordinary leave facility or a service concession, but a statutory protection safeguarding a woman’s health, dignity and well-being during pregnancy and after childbirth. It enables women to fulfil maternal responsibilities without having to choose between motherhood and livelihood.
The Court emphasised that contractual employment alone cannot justify denial of maternity benefits where the prescribed eligibility requirements are fulfilled. It also noted that the rejection contained no independent assessment of the petitioner’s eligibility and relied only on the contractual restriction on additional leave.
Additionally, the Court asserted that since the petitioner’s requested leave fell entirely within her contractual tenure, and the rejection rested solely on the general prohibition against additional leave, the denial could not be sustained. The Court retained the qualification that maternity entitlement must be assessed against the applicable statutory provisions and prescribed eligibility requirements.
