Madras High Court: In a writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in the writ petition and consequently direct the Dean, Thanjavur Medical College, to return the Under Graduation and Post-Graduation Education Certificates of the petitioner, the division bench of G.R.Swaminathan* and K.Rajasekar, JJ. held that the maternity leave availed by a doctor while rendering mandatory bond service at a Government hospital must be counted towards the bond period. Further, the College was directed to return the appellant’s original certificates within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Background
The appellant obtained her MBBS degree in 2014. She was allotted a seat in the MS (General Surgery) course at the Thanjavur Medical College, for the academic year 2016—17. The course was three years long.
As per the prospectus for admission to postgraduate degree courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges for the 2016—19 session, candidates were required to sign a bond for a sum of ₹40 lakhs, undertaking to serve the Government of Tamil Nadu for a minimum period of two years. Additionally, candidates were required to submit their original educational certificates to the medical college concerned.
In compliance with these conditions, the appellant signed the bond and submitted her original certificates.
After obtaining her postgraduate degree, the appellant was appointed Assistant Surgeon at Thittakudi Government Hospital. She reported for duty and served at the said hospital for a period of twelve months. Thereafter, due to her pregnancy, she proceeded on maternity leave.
Since the appellant had completed only twelve months of the required twenty-four months of bond service, the respondents refused to return her original certificates.
In these circumstances, the appellant filed a writ petition, seeking directions to the College to return her educational certificates. However, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing that, as per the bond executed by the appellant at the time of admission, she was obligated to serve in the Government hospital for a period of two years. The Court noted that the appellant had not fulfilled this condition, as she had availed maternity leave and had only completed twelve months of service at the Hospital. Consequently, the college had withheld her original certificates, citing that twelve more months of service remained to be completed under the terms of the undertaking. Aggrieved, she filed the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision
The Court viewed that the power of lien can be exercised only over marketable commodities, and an educational certificate does not fall under this category. Therefore, it cannot be retained or withheld under the pretext of exercising a lien. However, the Court noted that the matter at hand could be decided on alternative grounds.
The Court observed that the respondents had conceded the appellant had served the government for a period of twelve months, and that she was on maternity leave during the remaining period of her bond service. The Court further noted that the question of whether maternity leave can be counted towards bond service is no longer res integra.
This issue has been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 1 SCC 421, wherein the Court referred to the relevant provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. In particular, Section 5 affirms that every woman is entitled to the payment of maternity benefit, while Section 12 prohibits an employer from dismissing or discharging a woman for availing maternity leave in accordance with the Act. Additionally, Section 27 provides that the provisions of the Act shall prevail over any inconsistent laws, agreements, or contracts of service.
The Court also referred to Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, Chandigarh, (2023) 13 SCC 681, in which the Supreme Court, while interpreting the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, drew guidance from the protective principles embedded in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
The Court noted that, as per the conditions set out in the admission prospectus, the appellant was required to serve the Government of Tamil Nadu in one of its hospitals for a period of two years. However, the Court held that this condition must yield to the rights conferred upon women under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Emphasising the constitutional dimension, the Court pointed out that the Supreme Court has categorically held that every woman has a fundamental right to the benefits arising out of maternity, and that maternity leave is an integral part of maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
While the appellant was not a regular government employee but merely bound by a contractual obligation to render two years of bond service, the Court opined that this distinction was not material. A regular State Government employee is entitled to twelve months of maternity leave under the amended Service Rules, and the appellant, though not holding permanent status, was equally entitled to the same treatment.
The Court concluded that the appellant’s fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 14 were clearly engaged, and that she was entitled to the same protective umbrella available to regular employees when it comes to maternity-related entitlements.
Applying the legal fiction laid down by in Kavita Yadav (supra), the appellant must be deemed to have served the Government of Tamil Nadu even during her maternity leave. The Court emphasised that the twelve-month period of maternity leave must be treated as part of the mandatory bond service.
Accordingly, the order passed in the writ petition was set aside. The writ appeal was allowed, and the College was directed to return the appellant’s original certificates within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
[Dr. E. Krithikaa v State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 3035, decided on 19-06-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice GR Swaminathan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: Mr.U.Venkatesh
For Respondents: Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader, Mr.A.S.Vaigunth, Standing counsel.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
