Temporary Women Employees Cannot Be Denied Maternity Leave Due to Technical Service Breaks: Bombay HC

Maternity benefits are not a matter of administrative discretion but a statutory and constitutional guarantee rooted in dignity, equality, and social justice. Despite this settled legal position, women engaged on a temporary, contractual, or ad hoc basis in public employment frequently face denial of maternity benefits on hyper-technical grounds such as artificial or “technical” breaks in service.

In Dr. Vrushali Vasant Yadav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025:BHC-KOL:3962-DB), the Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench) decisively reaffirmed that technical breaks introduced by the employer cannot be used to deny maternity leave benefits to women employees working temporarily. The Court held such a denial to be arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the benevolent object of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

Factual Background of the Case

The petitioner, Dr. Vrushali Vasant Yadav, was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Rajarshree Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Government Medical College, Kolhapur, on a temporary basis from 21 September 2018. Her appointment was renewed periodically after every 120 days, with technical breaks of one or two days inserted between successive spells of service.

Despite these artificial breaks, the petitioner worked continuously and uninterruptedly in substance, performing the same duties without any real cessation of employment. In May 2021, when she was eight and a half months pregnant, she applied for maternity leave for the period from 8 May 2021 to 16 September 2021 (131 days).

Although her application was forwarded by the Dean to the Director of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai, the maternity leave was not sanctioned. The entire period was instead treated as leave without pay, solely on the ground that she was a temporary employee with technical breaks in service.

Aggrieved by this denial, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Procedural History and Conduct of the State

A notable aspect of the case was the failure of the State authorities to file any affidavit-in-reply, despite repeated opportunities granted by the Court. The Bench expressly recorded that even after directions and warnings, the respondents chose not to place their defence on record.

Consequently, the Court proceeded to decide the petition based on uncontroverted pleadings, a factor that further weakened the State’s position and underscored administrative apathy towards maternity rights.

Issue

• Whether maternity leave benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 can be denied to a woman employee working temporarily solely because her service record contains technical or artificial breaks introduced by the employer.

Statutory Framework: Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

The Court’s analysis was anchored in Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which guarantees payment of maternity benefit to every woman who has actually worked for not less than 80 days in the twelve months preceding the expected delivery.

The statute does not distinguish between permanent, temporary, contractual, or ad hoc employees. The emphasis is on actual work performed, not on the form or label of employment.

The petitioner had clearly satisfied this statutory threshold, having worked continuously since 2018, except for artificial breaks that did not reflect any real discontinuity in service.

Technical Breaks: Substance Over Form

A critical contribution of this judgment lies in its treatment of technical breaks. The Court unequivocally held that:

• Technical breaks of one or two days inserted after fixed-term appointments are administrative devices, not genuine interruptions of service.
• For all practical purposes, the petitioner had been in continuous employment.
• Denying maternity benefits on such grounds would undermine the purpose of welfare legislation.

The Court observed that accepting such an argument would encourage exploitation, as employers could deliberately create service breaks to deny statutory benefits.

Maternity Benefit as a Welfare Right, Not a Contractual Privilege

The Bench reaffirmed that maternity benefits are part of beneficial and social welfare legislation. Such laws must be interpreted liberally and purposively, not narrowly or pedantically.

The Court categorically rejected the notion that maternity leave is linked to the nature of the appointment. Instead, it recognised maternity benefits as a biological and social necessity, integral to women’s right to equality in employment.

Any interpretation that penalises women for motherhood, especially due to employer-created technicalities, was held to be constitutionally impermissible.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

The judgment draws strength from well-established Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly:

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) (2000)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court extended maternity benefits even to daily wage and muster roll workers, holding that motherhood cannot be a ground for discrimination in employment.

The Bombay High Court relied heavily on this precedent to reiterate that employment insecurity cannot dilute maternity rights.

J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Badri Mali (1964)

The Court also referred to earlier authority, emphasising that beneficial labour legislation must be interpreted in favour of employees, particularly women workers.

High Court Precedents Supporting the Petitioner

The Bench further relied on its own earlier decision in Archana D/o Nanabhau Dahifale v. State of Maharashtra (2018), where maternity benefits were extended to contractual and ad hoc women employees.

It also cited persuasive authority from the Kerala High Court in Rakhi P.V. v. State of Kerala, where denial of full maternity leave to contractual employees was held to be discriminatory and unconstitutional.

These precedents collectively demonstrate a consistent judicial trend recognising maternity benefit as a universal entitlement for working women, irrespective of employment status.

Rejection of the State’s Administrative Practice

The Court took note of the internal communication of the Medical Education Department, which stated that maternity benefits were not granted to temporary employees who continued through technical breaks.

The Bench implicitly condemned this practice, holding it to be arbitrary, unjustifiable, and contrary to statutory mandate. Administrative convenience or departmental practice, the Court held, cannot override statutory rights.

Final Decision and Relief Granted

Allowing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court held that:

• Denial of maternity leave solely due to technical breaks is untenable in law.
• The petitioner was entitled to full maternity benefits for the claimed period.
• The respondents were directed to pay the maternity benefit amount within four weeks.
• Failure to comply would attract interest at 9% per annum until actual disbursement.

The matter was listed for compliance reporting, signalling the Court’s seriousness in ensuring the enforcement of its directions.

Constitutional Dimensions of the Judgment

Although the judgment primarily rests on statutory interpretation, it resonates strongly with constitutional values:

• Article 14: Prohibits arbitrary discrimination between permanent and temporary women employees.
• Article 15(3): Permits special provisions for women.
• Article 21: Protects dignity, bodily autonomy, and reproductive rights.
• Directive Principles: Encourage humane conditions of work and maternity relief.

The judgment thus reinforces maternity benefit as a constitutional entitlement, not merely a service condition.

Conclusion

Bombay High Court’s decision in Dr. Vrushali Vasant Yadav v. State of Maharashtra makes it clear that motherhood cannot be denied or penalised based on technical or administrative tricks.

By holding that technical breaks cannot defeat maternity rights, the Court has strengthened the protective shield around working women and reaffirmed the welfare-oriented spirit of labour jurisprudence in India. The judgment stands as a reminder that law must adapt to social realities and not allow bureaucratic formalism to erode human dignity.

In an era of increasing contractualisation of public employment, this ruling is a crucial step towards ensuring that women are not forced to choose between career continuity and motherhood, a choice the Constitution itself refuses to impose.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams