Woman Employee Returning From Maternity Leave Entitled To Reinstatement In Same Position Held By Her Immediately Prior To Such Leave: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a petition whereby the petitioner sought issuance of clear and strict guidelines to regulate the transactions pertaining to pregnancy discrimination in private companies. The petitioner also sought compensation of Rs 50 lakh for the mental and emotional harassment suffered by her.

The Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed, “Given the statutory framework, it is held that every woman employee returning from maternity leave shall ordinarily be entitled to reinstatement in the same position held by her immediately prior to proceeding on maternity leave. Where such reinstatement is genuinely impracticable, she shall be placed in an equivalent position carrying substantially the same pay, status, seniority, responsibilities, managerial authority, decision-making functions, promotional opportunities, and prospects of career advancement. Any reassignment resulting in a material changes in responsibilities, authority, status, or professional growth solely on account of pregnancy or maternity leave shall be presumed to be discriminatory unless justified by compelling and bona fide reasons unrelated to maternity.”

“A woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to be restored to the post held by her immediately prior to proceeding on such leave. Where, for bona fide and demonstrable organisational reasons, the post is no longer available, she is entitled to be placed in a position as nearly equivalent to it as possible in terms of pay, grade, status, role, responsibilities, managerial authority, and prospects for advancement”, it added.

Advocate Parul Singh represented the Petitioner while Central Govt Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant with approximately fourteen years of professional experience, was appointed by the second respondent as Manager, Accounting. The petitioner was offered a salary of ₹2,60,000 per month, and she was required to join on June 6, 2022. The petitioner claimed that she continued to perform her duties in that capacity until May 2023, when she informed the management of her pregnancy. According to the petitioner, shortly after disclosing her pregnancy, she was transferred her to a different team. It was submitted that although dissatisfied with the change, the petitioner accepted the reassignment in good faith, believing the respondent’s assurances that she would be restored to her original role upon her return from maternity leave.

The petitioner proceeded on maternity leave in December 2023 and resumed work in July 2024. Upon her return, she was informed that no position was available for her in her original team. Instead, she was assigned to the Treasury Department, a role which, according to the petitioner, bore no resemblance to the managerial accounting position for which she had been hired. The petitioner alleged that the actions of the respondent company amounted to maternity and pregnancy-based discrimination, post-maternity demotion, denial of equal professional opportunities, and violation of statutory protections available to women employees.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the case in question fell squarely within the recognised exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy. The Bench took note of the fact that the petitioner did not merely seek enforcement of a statutory entitlement to maternity leave or payment of maternity benefits and her grievance pertained to alleged post-maternity demotion, loss of managerial authority, deprivation of professional responsibilities, denial of career progression, and discriminatory treatment arising from pregnancy and motherhood. “These allegations directly implicate the guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 15, the right to dignity and livelihood under Article 21, and the constitutional commitment to maternity protection reflected in Article”, it added.

Taking note of the common law jurisdictions, the Bench held, “Across common law systems, maternity is not viewed merely as a basis for entitlement to leave; rather, it is accompanied by a corresponding right to return to employment without any loss of status, responsibilities, authority, seniority, or career progression.”

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner proceeded on maternity leave in December 2023, while holding the office of Manager-Accounting, in which capacity she supervised a team. At some point, during her absence, another employee was conferred with the responsibilities that she had previously been discharging. The Bench noted that the same was not done merely as a temporary or stop-gap arrangement; rather, the petitioner’s return to her previous post was foreclosed in her absence.

The Bench also found that the petitioner was not consulted at any stage, neither before her previous position was filled, nor while alternatives were considered and at no stage no reason or written communication was furnished to her. “As already observed, the protection conferred by Section 12 inherently subsumes the requirement that a woman who returns to work from maternity leave be treated with dignity. The conduct of the respondent no. 2 cannot be reconciled with this obligation”, it added.

Considering that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant with approximately 14 years of professional standing who was drawing a salary of Rs 2.6 lakhs per month, the Bench asked the second respondent to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 10,00,000 lakh, which is approximately equal to four months salary. “The petitioner would also be entitled to costs amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-, having regard to the duration of the proceedings and the circumstances in which she was constrained to approach this Court to vindicate a statutory protection”, it added.

The Bench concluded the matter by clarifying, “The prohibition contained in Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and Section 68(1) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, against varying, to a woman’s disadvantage, any conditions of service during her statutorily protected absence is not confined to measures amounting to, or directly associated with, termination of employment nor is it exhausted by merely maintaining her salary and designation. The expression “conditions of service” extends to the substantive incidents of employment, including the nature and content of the duties entrusted to her, her grade and functional status, reporting hierarchy, supervisory responsibilities, and her entitlement to be considered for appraisal and promotion. Retention of the same designation and remuneration is, therefore, necessary but not by itself sufficient if changes are brought about in respect of the aforesaid attributes, to her detriment.”

Holding that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to be restored to the post held by her immediately prior to proceeding on such leave, the Bench clarified, “Where, for bona fide reasons, the post previously held by a woman (who returns from maternity leave) is no longer available, the employer shall, before her resumption of duty, duly intimate the reasons for the non-availability of the post and the particulars of the alternative or equivalent position proposed to be offered to her including its grade, remuneration, reporting relationship and duties attached thereto. If any objection thereto is raised by the concerned woman employee, the same shall be duly considered by the employer and the outcome of such consideration shall be conveyed to her by way of a reasoned communication.”

Cause Title: Rakhi Bisht v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7286)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Parul Singh, Kunal Kher, Harshita Jain, Sanjeev Mahajan, (Amicus Curiae), Simran Rao

Respondent: Central Govt Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit, Advocates Umar Hashmi, Gautam Yadav, Iqra Sheikh, Mumtaz Bhalla, Prapti Allagh

Click here to read/download Order