Chhattisgarh High Court: In a writ petition seeking payment of monetary benefits admissible during maternity leave and challenging Clause 11.2 of the Circular dated 17 July 2026, a Single Judge Bench of Bibhu Datta Guru, J., held that the salary for the period during which the petitioner had availed maternity leave could not be denied on the ground that she was serving as a Guest Lecturer. The Court observed that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Maternity Benefit Act), did not restrict the benefit of maternity leave to regular women employees and directed the respondent authorities to take an appropriate decision regarding the petitioner’s claim for unpaid salary.
Background
The petitioner was working as a Guest Lecturer in Political Science at Government Gundadhur PG College, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, since 16 August 2024. After availing maternity leave, she rejoined her duties on 19 August 2026.
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent authorities to consider her representations dated 29 May 2026 and 5 August 2026 and grant all monetary benefits admissible during the period of maternity leave. She also sought quashing of Clause 11.2 of the Circular dated 17 July 2026 and a direction to issue a revised circular extending maternity leave benefits to Guest Lecturers in accordance with law.
The petitioner submitted that she was entitled to monetary benefits during maternity leave under Section 5, Maternity Benefit Act, but the respondent authorities had failed to release the same despite her representations. She contended that the denial of such benefits pursuant to Clause 11.2 of the Circular dated 17 July 2026 was contrary to the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act.
The State opposed the claim, submitting that since the petitioner was not a regular employee, she could not claim benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, and was therefore not entitled to monetary benefits.
Analysis
The Court observed that, upon going through the different provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, it did not find anything that entitled only regular women employees to maternity leave benefits, excluding those engaged on a casual basis, on a muster roll on daily wages or as Guest Lecturers. The Court observed that:
“…a woman employee, at the time of advanced pregnancy cannot be compelled to undertake hard labour as it would be detrimental to her health and also to the health of the foetus. It is for this reason that it is provided in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 that she would be entitled to maternity leave for certain periods prior to and after delivery.”
The Court further noted that the Maternity Benefit Act was enacted to secure women’s right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker, if they so desired.
The Court relied on Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 1 SCC 421, wherein the Supreme Court considered whether the maternity benefits, as contemplated in the Maternity Benefit Act, would apply to a lady employee appointed on contract if the period for which she claims such benefits overshoots the contractual period. The Supreme Court held that continuation of maternity benefits is in built in the statute itself, where the benefits would survive and continue despite the cessation of employment. It was further observed that maternity benefits accrued upon fulfilment of the conditions specified in Section 5(2) of the Act and were not co-terminus with the tenure of employment.
The Supreme Court cited MCD v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), (2000) 3 SCC 224 in Kavita Yadav, wherein it was observed that the provisions of the Act were in consonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Article 42 of the Constitution, and that the Maternity Benefit Act did not restrict maternity leave benefits to regular women employees and there is nothing contained in the Maternity Benefit Act which entitles only regular women employees to the benefit of maternity leave and not to those who are engaged on casual basis or on muster roll on dailywage basis.
The Supreme Court further cited Deepika Singh v. Pgimer, Chandigarh, (2023) 13 SCC 681 in Kavita Yadav, wherein it was held that Section 5(1), Maternity Benefit Act conferred an entitlement to payment of maternity benefits for the period of her actual absence beginning from the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day. The Supreme Court also observed that the Maternity Benefit Act was enacted to secure women’s right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women flexibility to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker.
Applying these principles, the Court noted that it was not the case of the respondents that the petitioner’s job was not similar to that of regular Lecturers or that she was unable to perform the duties of a regular Lecturer. Rather, the petitioner, though appointed as a Guest Lecturer, was performing the same duties and responsibilities as a regular Lecturer. The Court observed that the respondent authorities were, therefore, not justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to monetary benefits merely because she was working as a Guest Lecturer.
Considering the matter in the light of the orders passed by the Supreme Court, the Court held that the salary for the period during which the petitioner had gone on maternity leave could not be denied on the ground that she was serving as a Guest Lecturer. It further observed that, once maternity leave had been granted to the petitioner, the respondents were under an obligation to release her salary for the period of maternity leave.
Also Read: Denying maternity benefit to contractual employee is abhorrent to humanity and womanhood: Orissa HC
Decision
Consequently, the Court directed the respondent authorities to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, as the petitioner was entitled to maternity leave, and to pass appropriate orders on her claim for unpaid salary for the period of maternity leave at the earliest, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
[Pushpa Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 7671 of 2026, decided on 27-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Shubham Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shahil Singh, Panel Lawyer
