Introduction
Maternity protection sits at the meeting point of labour rights, gender justice and constitutional dignity. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (the “Act”) is a welfare statute, yet in practice women engaged as consultants, contractual staff or on consolidated pay are often told that their appointment terms leave no room for maternity leave.
In Smt. Shivangi Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1561/2023), decided on 16 October 2026, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dealt with this question. Justice Bipin Gupta held that the nature of a woman’s employment, whether regular, casual or contractual, cannot by itself be treated as a conclusive ground for denying maternity benefits where the applicable statutory conditions are fulfilled. The judgment was marked reportable. It was reserved on 8 October 2026 and pronounced on 16 October 2026.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was engaged as a “Consultant (AEE)” on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 40,000 per month, following her selection by the State Environment Appraisal Committee (SEAC)-I and II, Government of Rajasthan. Her appointment order was dated 25 July 2022. She joined on 4 August 2022 for one year, and her initial tenure was due to expire on 3 August 2023.
On 7 December 2022, she applied for six months’ maternity leave from 26 December 2022, as advised by her doctor. By a letter dated 16 December 2022, the Member Secretary, SEAC-I, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, rejected the request. The only reason given was Condition No. 5 of the appointment order, which allowed nothing beyond the declared holidays of the State Government.
She then served a legal notice dated 22 December 2022. The judgment records that she received neither the leave nor a reply, and she approached the High Court.
Contentions of the Parties
The petitioner challenged the denial as arbitrary and contrary to law. Her submissions, in brief, were as follows:
- Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which provides for maternity leave of up to 180 days for female government servants.
- A letter dated 12 April 2017 from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment. It clarified that women employed in any capacity, directly or through an agency, including on a contractual basis or as consultants, are entitled to maternity leave.
- Hemlata Saraswata v. State of Rajasthan (decided on 29 January 2008) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), (2000) 3 SCC 224.
- Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, (2024) 1 SCC 421, along with two Rajasthan High Court decisions, State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Neeraj and Shimla Meena v. State of Rajasthan.
- Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, which she said were violated by the denial.
The respondents opposed the petition on the following three grounds:
- She had been appointed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, not by respondent No. 2 in its individual capacity.
- Condition No. 5 expressly confined consultants to declared State Government holidays.
- Her engagement was contractual, for one year, extendable by one more year subject to satisfactory performance, with a total ceiling of two years. The extension was not automatic. Her initial tenure expired on 3 August 2023 without extension, so she had no right to continue or to claim remuneration beyond it.
The Statutory Framework
The Court took note of the following provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which formed the statutory backdrop to the dispute.
- Section 5 provides for maternity benefit, subject to the prescribed eligibility conditions.
- Section 12 protects against dismissal or discharge in the circumstances it specifies.
- Section 27 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in any other law, award, agreement or contract of service.
For context, the Supreme Court in Female Workers (Muster Roll) noted that Section 3(o) defines “woman” as one employed, directly or through any agency, for wages in an establishment. Section 5(2) requires a woman to have actually worked for not less than eighty days in the twelve months before her expected delivery. Section 27(2) preserves a woman’s right to agree with her employer on more favourable terms.
The Court’s Reasoning
Maternity benefit is a statutory protection, not an ordinary leave facility, the Court said maternity benefit is not merely a service-related concession. It safeguards the health, dignity and well-being of a woman during pregnancy and after childbirth. It also ensures that childbirth does not adversely affect her employment-related entitlements. It is rooted in constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity and in Article 42, which directs the State to provide for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
Employment status is not decisive, the Court observed that maternity leave is a statutory entitlement meant to let a woman recover after childbirth and to ensure the child receives care in the crucial early stages of life. It cannot be made contingent solely on the nature or tenure of employment. A woman employed on a regular, temporary, ad hoc, urgent temporary or contractual basis cannot be denied it merely because of that nature of employment. Two conditions apply, namely that the legal requirements must be satisfied and that the leave period must fall within the subsistence of her employment.
Precedents relied upon, the Court drew on a consistent line of authority. It relied on Female Workers (Muster Roll), where the Supreme Court held that the Act does not confine maternity leave to regular employees and extended it to casual and muster roll workers. It also relied on Dr. Kavita Yadav, where the Supreme Court held that maternity benefits accrue on fulfilment of Section 5(2) and can travel beyond the term of employment. The Supreme Court observed there that “discharge” under Section 12(2)(a) includes discharge on conclusion of the contractual period, and that Section 27 overrides inconsistent contracts. The Court further referred to Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, (2023) 13 SCC 681, which the Supreme Court had itself referred to in Dr. Kavita Yadav. At the High Court level, it relied on Minakshi Chaudhary v. RSRTC, 2024 (4) RLW 2692 (Raj.), where a Coordinate Bench treated maternity leave as a right tied to a woman’s dignity under Article 21. It also relied on Rani Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan (decided on 1 July 2025), where another Coordinate Bench followed Hemlata Saraswata and Dr. Kavita Yadav.
The contractual condition could not defeat the statute, the rejection rested solely on Condition No. 5. The Court found that it did not proceed on any independent determination of the petitioner’s eligibility under the maternity provisions. This was inconsistent with the protective object of the Act. Section 27 meant that a contractual term contrary to the Act could not override it.
The leave fell within the contract period, maternity leave from 26 December 2022 for six months would end on 25 June 2023, which is within her tenure ending 3 August 2023. The Court therefore held that the denial could not be sustained.
The Directions
The writ petition was allowed, and the Court issued the following directions to the respondents, which are set out below.
- The letter dated 16 December 2022 was quashed and set aside.
- The respondents must extend maternity benefits for 180 days from 26 December 2022.
- They must pay the admissible remuneration for that period, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions.
This must be done within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
Why This Matters from an Employment Law Perspective
- Appointment terms are not a shield, clauses restricting leave to declared holidays, common in consultancy and fixed-term engagements, cannot be used to deny a statutory entitlement.
- Reasoned decision-making is required, an employer must examine eligibility under the Act and cannot simply cite the contract.
- Compliance review, employers engaging women as consultants, contractual staff or on consolidated pay should check their appointment templates and leave policies against Sections 5, 12 and 27 of the Act.
- Building on the Supreme Court, the judgment applies the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Dr. Kavita Yadav to a consultant engaged by a State authority.
- Timing, the respondents’ argument that her tenure ended on 3 August 2023 did not save the refusal, since the leave period fell within the initial tenure. The Court nonetheless quashed the refusal and directed the benefit.
AMLEGALS Remarks
The Rajasthan High Court’s decision is a clear affirmation that maternity protection belongs to women as a matter of statute and constitutional values, and does not depend on how an employer labels the engagement. By holding that a contractual condition inconsistent with the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 must yield under Section 27, the Court has reinforced a line of reasoning the Supreme Court has built over more than two decades, from Female Workers (Muster Roll) to Dr. Kavita Yadav.
At the same time, the judgment is balanced. It keeps the Act’s eligibility requirements and the nature of the establishment in view, and it leaves room for scrutiny of individual claims. For employers, the message is to align contracts and policies with the statute. For women workers, it is that a contractual appointment does not take away a statutory right. For law students and practitioners, it is a useful illustration of how welfare legislation prevails over inconsistent service terms.
For any queries or feedback, feel free to connect with Hiteashi.desai@amlegals.com