Shagoon Gupta vs Ministry Of Communications & Anr.

ORDER

“(A)

Direct the respondents to immediately grant maternity leave with compensation to the applicant;

(B)

Pass such other and further order(s) as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

“5.1

The Applicant, being entitled to the maternity benefit as per the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and on account of denial of it by the Respondents, the Applicant is suffering a grave miscarriage of justice and hardship.

5.2

The denial of the Applicant's entitlement to maternity leave with compensation, as mandated by law, is contrary to principles of natural justice, in gross violation of the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

5.3

The Maternity Benefit Act 1961 states that a woman should have worked with her employer for at least 80 days in the 12 months preceding the date of her expected delivery. The Applicant has met the requirements stipulated by the Act, which include a minimum of 80 days working with her employer in the 12 months preceding the date of her expected delivery.

5.4

Months have passed that Applicant has applied for the maternity leave under the provisions of the Act but still no response has been received yet by the Respondent No. 2.

5.5

The Applicant has not received the remuneration for the month of March, to August 2023.

5.6

As a new mother, not only financial support which comes from salary is desired but emotional support and social security are what helps a woman in her journey as a mother but the prolonged delay in processing my application coupled with umpteeen reminders and follow-ups is causing not only a significant financial strain but as well as mental trauma to me and my family to raise my child.

5.7

The government in other ministries are providing the benefit of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to all their female employees irrespective of their nature of job.

5.8

Despite several reminders and requests sent to the Respondent No. 2 via emails, requesting the processing of her application and the passing of a formal order for maternity leave with pay, the Applicant has not received any response from the Respondent No. 2.

5.9

The Applicant is entitled to the maternity leave with compensation as mandated by the terms of Section 2, 4 and 5 of the Act.

5.10

Maternity benefits are such benefits that are provided to female employees to protect their rights during pregnancy and post-childbirth. These benefits are governed by the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.

5.11

The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly held that the as permanent employees or based on an agreement, all female employees are entitled to the benefits of maternity leave and other attached benefits.

5.12

In the case titled “Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Anr.” AIR 2000 SC 1274, The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

"The provisions of the Maternity Act are in consensus with the Directive Principles of State Policy, Articles 39 and 42 of the Constitution. No pregnant woman employee should be forced to work during the advanced stages of her pregnancy because it is harmful to her health and the health of the infant. The women on muster roll performed the same nature and quantum of duties that were being performed by women on regular rolls. The female employees were performing hard labor, working on construction projects, and maintaining roads. Thus, the court concluded and ordered that all such employees are entitled to a maternity leave before and after the delivery. The Court concluded that the Maternity Benefits Act does not venture forth, divide, and assign rights based on how a worker has been classified. As permanent employees or based on an agreement, all female employees are entitled to the benefits of maternity leave and other attached benefits."

5.13

The provisions of the 1961 Act do not differentiate between a permanent employee and a contractual employee, or even a daily wage (muster roll) worker. Article 14 of the constitution states that no person will be denied equality before the law or equal protection of the law. So, the labor belonging to any sector is equal before the law. The bench further stated that under Article 39 of the constitution, certain policies are to be followed by the state to secure that men and women have equal rights to livelihood and that there is equal pay for work by both men and women. The bench also states about Article 42 and Article 43 of the constitution; article 42 talks about just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief and that the validity of executive action on denying it will be examined on the basis of article 42 of the constitution. Article 43 speaks about living wage etc. for workers to ensure a decent standard of living. The bench further talks about the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which aims to provide facilities and benefits to working women in a dignified manner so that they can overcome motherhood in a peaceful manner.

5.14

In the case titled “RAKHI P.V. AND ORS. V. THE STATE OF KERALA _ 2018 SCC Online Ker. 864” Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held that all female employees, irrespective of the fact that they are employed on a contractual basis or not, shall be entitled to the benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act. The court also emphasized that such benefits will be available regardless of the length of the employment contract. In its order, the court granted a leave of 180 days. Going against this creed would amount to an act of discrimination based on gender.

5.15

In the case titled “DR. BABA SAHEB AMBEDKAR HOSPITAL GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER VS. DR. KRATI MALHOTRA” W.P.(C) 12783/2019 decided on 26.3.2021, this Hon’ble Court has significantly held that ad-hoc employee is entitled to maternity benefits beyond the term of contract if conception of pregnancy takes place during the period of contract of employment. It was observed that since the object of the Maternity Benefits Act is to grant benefits to the woman both during pregnancy and after childbirth, the benefits cannot be tied up to the tenure of the contract.

5.16

In the case titled “RASITHA C.H. V. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS (KERALA HIGH COURT)” –WP(C) No. 5507 of 2018, decided on 22.08.2017 Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that maternity benefits were neither mere statutory benefits nor benefits arising out of contractual obligations. Maternity leave was an essential part of a woman’s dignity. Basing this judgment on the ratio of Mini v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and the judgment of Rakhi P.V. and Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. In both these cases, it has been held that no woman can be compelled to choose between her natural right to motherhood and employment. Further, the Court set aside the contention of the respondents in the writ petition that since the Applicant was a contractual employee, she could only claim a maximum of 15 days of casual leave during a period of one year. The Court highly and rightly stressed the judgment in Rakhi's case and held that women employees who are based on a contractual basis cannot be denied their right to maternity leave.

5.17

In the case titled “RASITHA B.S. RAJESHWARI V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT)” Writ Petition No. 10677 of 2020, decided on 04-02-2021 Hon’ble High Court held that the law of land applied equally to all, and in the present case, it meant that it applied to the contractual employees. There was no segregation under the Maternity Benefits Act of the country to classify female employees as government servants, temporary servants, or contract-based employees. The employer does not have the authority to make such separations on its own behalf. Hon’ble High Court directed that Applicant be reinstated back to her work within a period of 2 weeks and be awarded 50% of her wages between the period of her termination and actual reinstatement. Additionally, the court levied exemplary damage of INR 25,000 for the gross injustice suffered by the woman employee. The court concluded that the Maternity Benefits Act does not venture forth, divide, and assign rights based on how a worker has been classified. As permanent employees or based on an agreement, all female employees are entitled to the benefits of maternity leave and other attached benefits.

5.18

In the case titled “DR. MANDEEP KAUR V. UNION OF INDIA (HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT) WP No. 1400 of 2018 decided on 15.07.2020,” Hon’ble Court was right to conclude that the denial of maternity benefits to female employees under contracts is tantamount to a denial of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. A woman is entitled to her dignity and to be treated with equality at her workplace. It is thus the duty of the employer to facilitate the facilities for maintaining the same."

“Section 5. Right to payment of maternity benefit

5.

Right to payment of maternity benefit.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every woman shall be entitled to, and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wage for the period of her actual absence, that is to say, the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, 'the average daily wage' means the average of the woman's wages payable to her for the days on which she has worked during the period of three calendar months immediately preceding the date from which she absents herself on account of maternity, [the minimum rate of wage fixed or revised under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948), or ten rupees, whichever is the highest.]

(2)

No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit, for a period of not less than [eighty days] in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery:

Provided that the qualifying period of [eighty days] aforesaid shall not apply to a woman who has immigrated into the State of Assam and was pregnant at the time of the immigration.

Explanation.—For the purpose of calculating under this sub-section the days on which a woman has actually worked in the establishment, [the days for which she has been laid off or was on holidays declared under any law for the time being in force to be holidays with wages], during the period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery shall be taken into account.

[(3) The maximum period for which any woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit shall be [twenty-six weeks of which not more than eight weeks] shall precede the date of her expected delivery:]

[Provided that the maximum period entitled to maternity benefit by a woman having two or more than two surviving children shall be twelve weeks of which not more than six weeks shall precede the date of her expected delivery:]

[Provided further that] where a woman dies during this period, the maternity benefit shall be payable only for the days up to and including the day of her death:

[[Provided also that] where a woman, having been delivered of a child, dies during her delivery or during the period immediately following the date of her delivery, for which she is entitled for the maternity benefit, leaving behind in either case the child, the employer shall be liable for the maternity benefit for that entire period but if the child also dies during the said period, then, for the days up to and including the date of the death of the child.]

[(4) A woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother, as the case may be.]

(5)

In case where the nature of work assigned to a woman is of such nature that she may work from home, the employer may allow her to do so after availing of the maternity benefit for such period and on such conditions as the employer and the woman may mutually agree.]

1.

Learned proxy counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was offered an ad-hoc appointment as a Young Professional in the respondents' Department for the period from October 2022 to October 2023, with the initial appointment being for a period of one year, extendable up to three years. However, in March 2023, the applicant proceeded on maternity leave. The respondents have taken a stand that, at the time of initial appointment, the applicant had not disclosed that she was already pregnant.

2.

Today, across the Bar, learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn the attention of the Bench to the submission made on behalf of the applicant, as recorded in the order sheet dated 21.04.2025, which reads as under:-

"None for the applicant.

As per the proceedings dated 28.01.2025, at the request of the learned counsel for the applicant, the matter was deferred for today, however, none appeared on his behalf.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicant's counsel was supposed to provide certain rules/regulations with regard to the Maternity benefit sought by her. The learned counsel for the applicant is directed to bring the same on record before the next date of hearing. List on 07.08.2025."

3.

This is a short issue to be adjudicated as to whether an employee working on a contractual basis is entitled to maternity benefits.

4.

Learned proxy counsel for the applicant submits that there is a catena of judgments of the constitutional Courts holding that even contractual employees are entitled to maternity benefits. She is directed to place on record the relevant rules and regulations governing maternity benefits, as also the judgments sought to be relied upon.

5.

Re-notify on 08.09.2026 'High on board'.”