Maternity Leave Not Break In Service; Compulsory Medical Service Bond Cannot Override Woman's Right to Motherhood: Bombay High Court

The Court observed that contractual or service bond obligations cannot be invoked to penalise a woman for exercising maternity rights.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the imposition of a penalty for alleged non-completion of a bond period imposed after the petitioner proceeded on maternity leave while serving as an Assistant Professor under the Social Responsibility Service Scheme.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode while stating that “maternity leave is not a break in service and bond cannot be used to penalise a woman for exercising her right to motherhood”, further held: “...no bond can override the right to maternity leave which is a facet of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any contract, agreement or bond that penalises a woman for taking maternity leave or tries to deny her this right to that extent is found inconsistent according to Section 27of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The petitioner cannot be denied such a right only because the bond was executed by her under the Social Responsibility Service Scheme and does not hold permanent status, as she is also entitled to the same protective umbrella as available to regular employees when it comes to maternity-related entitlements”.

Background

The petitioner, a dental professional, completed her postgraduate dental education and subsequently applied for appointment under a government scheme requiring medical professionals to render compulsory public service for a fixed period following completion of their studies.

Under the scheme, candidates benefiting from subsidised medical education were required to serve for a specified period in government medical institutions. The petitioner was accordingly appointed as an Assistant Professor for a bond period of one year in a government dental college.

During the course of her service, the petitioner became pregnant and applied for maternity leave. The leave was granted for a specified duration during which she gave birth to a child.

After the maternity leave period, the petitioner approached the authorities seeking permission to resume duties and complete the remaining portion of the bond service.

However, the authorities informed her that the maternity leave period would not be counted towards completion of the bond service and that she would be required to complete the entire duration corresponding to the leave taken. A penalty amount was also determined for alleged non-completion of the bond period.

Aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty and the refusal to treat the maternity leave period as part of the service tenure, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the nature and purpose of maternity leave and observed that such leave enables a working woman to give birth, recover from childbirth, and care for the newborn child without fear of losing employment or facing punitive consequences.

The Court noted that pregnancy and childbirth involve significant physiological and psychological changes and that the period immediately before and after childbirth is crucial for both the mother and the child.

Referring to precedents explaining the social purpose of maternity protection, the Court observed that maternity leave safeguards the health of the mother while also ensuring proper care and development of the newborn child.

The Court emphasised that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to live with dignity, which includes protection of motherhood and health.

The Court further observed that maternity leave legislation is intended to achieve social justice for women workers and enable them to maintain their health while also nurturing their child.

Addressing the argument that maternity leave could not be granted during the bond period due to the absence of a specific provision in the scheme, the Court held that statutory and constitutional rights cannot be curtailed merely because service rules or contractual arrangements do not expressly provide for such leave.

The Court referred to Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which provides that the provisions of the Act shall have overriding effect over any inconsistent law, agreement, contract, or service condition.

In view of this statutory protection, the Court held that any contract, agreement, or bond that penalises a woman for availing maternity leave would be inconsistent with the Maternity Benefit Act.

The Court therefore concluded that maternity leave cannot be treated as a break in service and that a woman serving under a compulsory medical service bond is equally entitled to maternity-related protections available to other employees.

Conclusion

Concluding that “the period during which the petitioner was on maternity leave needs to be considered as a duty period and the petitioner is entitled to salary for the said period”, the High Court allowed the writ petition.

The Court directed that the petitioner was entitled to salary for the maternity leave period and set aside the penalty imposed for non-completion of the bond period.

Cause Title: Dr Meenakshi Muthiah v. State of Maharashtra & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:3813-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: A.M. Sudame, Advocate

Respondents: N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader

Click here to read/download Judgment