Pregnant Women Have Right To Refuse Work Which Is Unsafe For Foetus Without Facing Discrimination: Rajasthan High Court
A pregnant woman was ordered to transfer to Jodhpur, a distance of 320 kilometers from her residence.

The Rajasthan High Court strongly criticized the state's decision to transfer an 8-month pregnant nursing officer, 320 kilometers away from her current posting ruling that pregnant women have the right to refuse work that may pose a risk to the health of their foetus.
The Court was hearing a petition from a pregnant woman stationed in Sikar, who was ordered to transfer to Jodhpur, a distance of 320 kilometers from her residence. The petitioner challenged the transfer, arguing that the move would pose significant health risks, both for herself and her unborn child, especially given her advanced pregnancy.
A bench of Justice Arun Monga held, “An order, that callously disregards her advanced pregnancy and fragile medical condition, as already noted. Whether this vindictiveness she is being meted out with, stems from a mindless, mechanical application of authority, a complete absence of reason, or the sheer arrogance of unchecked power is not clear. What is clear, however, is the indifference with which her rights and well-being have been trampled,”
Advocate Manish Patel appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Manish Dave appeared for the Respondent.
The Court emphasized maternal health has been given statutory protection by prohibiting work that may interfere with pregnancy or fetal development. The Court added, “Employers cannot thus force a pregnant woman to perform tasks that pose a risk to her or her baby. Pregnant lady, in a way, has the right to refuse work without fear of discrimination or retaliation, provided same is found to be unsafe either for her or her infant/foetus. In fact, non compliance by employers may result in adverse consequences qua them, in accordance with law.”
The Court pointed out the profound disregard for the woman’s condition, highlighting the potential harm the transfer would cause by forcing her to leave her current place of posting, change her attending physicians, and endure the risks of long-distance travel during the late stage of her pregnancy.
The Court further emphasized that traveling 300 kilometers one way would be "impossible" for the woman, given her condition. The travel would not only disrupt the vital care and attention required by her family but also create health hazards for both her and the unborn child.
In light of these concerns, the Court directed, "Respondent/State i.e. respondent No.1 is directed to sensitize its competent officers/head of departments who are empowered to pass transfer orders. For doing the needful, respondent No.1 (i.e. the Secretary, Health) shall immediately send copy of the instant order to the Chief Secretary of the State, who in turn shall ensure its due circulation to all concerned officers through email for their future awareness and compliance thereof".
Finally, the Court made it clear that the state must revisit the transfer decision, taking into account the statutory protections under the Maternity Benefit Act. The transfer order should not interfere with the woman's pregnancy, fetal development, or health, and should ensure she can perform her duties without fear of jeopardizing her well-being or livelihood.
Cause Title: Sulochana v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2025:RJ-JD:5472]