File image. | Photo credit: VIVEK BENDRE
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court held that the period of maternity leave taken by a woman cannot be treated as a break in service and that the terms of compulsory service cannot be used to penalize her for exercising her right to maternity.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode clarified that such unions, which are often carried out by medical professionals who receive subsidized education, are subject to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The court was hearing a claim filed by a dental expert who was appointed as a professional assistant under the social responsibility scheme. The scheme requires candidates availing of subsidized medical education to perform compulsory service in government institutions for a certain period of time. The petitioner was appointed to a one-year bond at the State College of Dentistry. During her tenure, she became pregnant and was granted maternity leave during which she gave birth to a child.
When she tried to resume her duties after the leave, the authorities informed her that the period of maternity leave does not count towards the end of her detention. She was ordered to serve an additional period corresponding to the length of her leave. Subsequently, she was fined for allegedly not complying with the possession of the bond.
The petitioner challenged the imposition of a penalty and the refusal to count the leave towards the performance of the service. The Bench said the purpose of maternity leave is to enable a woman to give birth and recover without fear of adverse consequences to her employment.
The court held that such leave could not be treated as a break in service. He stated that any contractual obligation from the union cannot be enforced in a way that penalizes a woman for exercising her reproductive rights, which are protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Bench further observed that the protections provided by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 are applicable irrespective of the permanent or temporary status of the employee. Referring to Section 27 of the Act, which annuls contracts contrary to the law, the Court stated that any agreement that denies or penalizes a woman from taking maternity leave is contrary to the law to that extent.
The court noted that even though the petitioner was on bond under the social responsibility scheme, she was entitled to the same protective umbrella as regular female employees in terms of maternity benefits. The petition was granted and the penalty requirement was dropped.
Published – 10 March 2026 21:45 IST
