Court holds Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 overrides contractual leave restrictions; woman consultant granted 180 days maternity leave with pay.
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 16, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Bipin Gupta, affirmed that women employed on a contractual basis cannot be denied maternity benefits guaranteed under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The ruling came in the case of Smt. Shivangi Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan, where the petitioner, engaged as a Consultant (Assistant Executive Engineer) on a one-year contract, sought 180 days maternity leave with remuneration. Her request was initially denied by the respondent authority citing a clause in her appointment order restricting leave to only declared State Government holidays.
The Court emphasized that maternity benefit is a statutory and constitutional protection intended to safeguard the health, dignity, and well-being of a woman during pregnancy and after childbirth. It is not a mere service concession or ordinary leave that can be curtailed by contractual terms. The judgment clarified that the nature of employment-whether regular, temporary, casual, or contractual-does not exclude a woman from maternity benefits if statutory conditions are met.
The petitioner had joined her contract on August 4, 2022, and requested maternity leave from December 26, 2022, to June 25, 2023, a period falling within her contractual tenure which was set to expire on August 3, 2023. The respondents' rejection was solely based on the restrictive leave clause in her appointment letter. The Court found this approach inconsistent with Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which gives it overriding effect over any inconsistent contractual provisions.
The judgment drew on authoritative Supreme Court precedents including Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Rolls) (2000), Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2024), and Deepika Singh v. PGIMER (2023), which collectively establish that maternity benefits cannot be denied to women on contractual or casual employment simply due to the nature of their appointment. The Court also referenced earlier Rajasthan High Court decisions such as Hemlata Saraswata v. State of Rajasthan and Minakshi Chaudhary v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation affirming maternity benefits as a fundamental right linked with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, 21, and 42 of the Indian Constitution.
Notably, the Court rejected the respondent's contention that the petitioner's contract duration limited her entitlement, clarifying that the maternity benefit legislation contemplates continuation of benefits even beyond the employment period if the maternity leave period overlaps with the contract tenure. The Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner maternity leave for 180 days from December 26, 2022, with payment of remuneration as per law, within three months, and to pay interest on the accrued amount.
This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory maternity benefits cannot be circumvented by contractual terms and is a significant victory for women employees on contract, reinforcing their right to maternity protection in line with constitutional and legislative mandates.
Bottom Line:
Maternity benefit is a statutory and constitutional protection and cannot be denied to a woman employee merely because she is engaged on contractual basis or because the appointment order restricts grant of leave; any such contractual condition is overridden by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Where the maternity leave period falls within the subsistence of the contractual tenure, the employee is entitled to 180 days maternity benefits with remuneration.
Statutory provision(s):
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Sections 5, 12, 27; Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 Rule 103; Constitution of India Articles 14, 16, 21, 42
Smt. Shivangi Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan, (Raj) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001074
