Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Aman Chaudhary has allowed a petition challenging the denial of maternity leave to a contractual clinic assistant and quashed the impugned letter that had initially prevented her from rejoining work after childbirth. The Court directed that the petitioner was entitled to maternity leave in accordance with the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and held that such entitlement applied regardless of whether the employment was regular or contractual. The Court declared that discrimination on the basis of the nature of engagement would be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In disposing of the matter, the Court affirmed that maternity benefits extend equally to fixed-term, contractual, and daily wage workers, aligning with constitutional protections and Supreme Court precedent.

The dispute arose when the petitioner, employed as a Clinic Assistant under the Aam Aadmi Clinic, City Raman, District Bathinda, applied for maternity leave from 20.06.2023 to 20.08.2023 via a request letter dated 16.05.2023. The application was submitted to the Nodal Officer of the clinic and forwarded by the Senior Medical Officer for sanction. On oral orders of the Civil Surgeon, the petitioner proceeded on maternity leave.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Father’s POCSO Conviction And Life Sentence | Says Incestuous Sexual Violence By Parent Warrants Severest Punishment

The petitioner gave birth to a baby girl on 01.07.2023 and was discharged from hospital on 03.07.2023. She sought to rejoin duties thereafter, but was not permitted to do so as per a letter dated 04.08.2023. The impugned letter/order dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure P-8) formed the subject of challenge in the writ petition.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that she was entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, regardless of the contractual nature of her appointment. It was submitted that denial of such benefit violated statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees.

On behalf of the State, the learned counsel, upon instructions from Dr. Nitesh Goyal, stated that the petitioner had subsequently been allowed to rejoin her duties.

The matter required examination of Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which stipulates that provisions of the Act override inconsistent laws or contractual terms, while preserving more favourable benefits granted under any other arrangement. The provision also clarifies that nothing in the Act prevents a woman from entering into an agreement for more favourable rights or privileges than those conferred by the Act.

The Court also considered the judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Another, (2000) 3 SCC 244, which held that the Maternity Benefit Act applies to contract workers, including daily wage employees. Further reference was made to Dr. Kavita Yadav vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and Others, (2024) 1 SCC 421, wherein it was held that fixed-term employees are entitled to full maternity benefits under Section 5 of the Act beyond their contractual tenure.

The statutory framework of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, enacted pursuant to Articles 39 and 42 of the Constitution, is designed to protect the rights of working women during pregnancy and motherhood. The petitioner’s contention rested on the principle that differentiating between regular and contractual employees in granting such benefits would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

Justice Aman Chaudhary recorded that “It would be apposite to refer Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act (in short, ‘the Act’), which reads thus: ‘27. Effect of laws and agreements inconsistent with this Act — (1) The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service…’”

The Court further noted that “where under any such award, agreement, contract of service or otherwise, a woman is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to her… the woman shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits… notwithstanding that she is entitled to receive benefits in respect of other matters under this Act.”

In referring to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi precedent, the Court stated that “the Maternity Benefit Act covers contract workers, including those employed on daily wages.” In reliance on Dr. Kavita Yadav, it was recorded that “even fixed-term employees would be entitled to full maternity benefits under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 beyond their contractual tenure.”

Justice Chaudhary stated that “The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, is a beneficial piece of legislation designed to safeguard the rights of working women during pregnancy and motherhood enacted in consonance with the Articles 39 and 42 of the Constitution of India.” It was further observed that “To discriminate between them, on the premise of the nature of their engagement/appointment, it being regular or contract, would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India whereby equality before the law and equal protection of laws is ensured.”

Also Read: Beas River Tragedy | Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Criminal Negligence Charges Against Faculty And Dam Officials Over Death Of Students On College Trip

The Court recorded that the State counsel’s statement confirmed the petitioner’s rejoining of duties, thereby addressing the immediate grievance. However, the legal question of entitlement was examined and resolved in favour of the petitioner.

Justice Aman Chaudhary allowed the writ petition and ordered that the impugned letter/order dated 03.08.2023, Annexure P-8, be quashed. The Court directed that the petitioner was entitled to maternity leave under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, notwithstanding her contractual employment status. It was declared that any discrimination in granting such benefits based on the nature of engagement would be unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court concluded that in light of the legal position and the precedents cited, the petitioner’s claim to maternity benefits was justified and protected under statutory and constitutional provisions.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. M.S. Bhatti, Advocate; Ms. Munisha Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab

Case Title: Harpreet Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:097110

Case Number: CWP-19393-2023 (O&M)

Bench: Justice Aman Chaudhary