Legal Awareness & Information.

High Court Rules Denying Pay Benefits During Maternity Leave is Illegal and Discriminatory

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant judgment holding that denying actual monetary benefits of a higher pay band to a female employee merely because she was on maternity leave on the due date of entitlement is illegal, unjust, irrational, unreasonable, discriminatory, and arbitrary.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma quashed an order issued by the Director, Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, which had rejected a Clerk's claim for actual benefits of a higher pay band, granting them only notionally during her maternity leave.

The case, filed by Petitioner Babli Devi (CWPOA/7185/2020), originated before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal seeking directions to the State respondents to grant her the monetary benefits of a higher pay band (₹10,300-34,800 + ₹3200 grade pay) effective from May 12, 2019, upon completing two years of regular service as a Clerk, along with arrears and interest.

Babli Devi was initially appointed on a contract basis in 2012 and regularized on May 11, 2017. As per a Finance Department Notification dated September 27, 2012, she became eligible for the higher pay band upon completing two years of regular service on May 12, 2019.

However, she had proceeded on maternity leave from April 8, 2019, to October 4, 2019. Upon noticing that the higher pay band benefit was not reflected in her May 2019 salary, she submitted a representation. The respondents rejected her claim for actual benefits during the leave period, citing Rule 43(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which states that during maternity leave, an employee shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. They argued that actual benefits would accrue only upon rejoining duty after the leave. They also mentioned that a colleague, Sharmila Devi , who was regularized simultaneously, received the benefit because she was not on maternity leave.

The Court rejected the respondents' interpretation of Rule 43(2). It emphasized that Maternity Benefit Act and maternity leave provisions are beneficial legislation aimed at ensuring a woman is not disadvantaged financially or professionally due to motherhood.

Citing several Supreme Court judgments, including Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) , Deepika Singh Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal , and Dr. Kavita Yadav Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department , as well as international conventions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and CEDAW, the High Court underscored the fundamental nature of motherhood and the right to maternity benefits as facets of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 42 (Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief) of the Constitution of India.

The bench observed: > "Denial of monetary benefits during maternity leave shall be amounting to exclusion of period of maternity leave from service tenure and it will be an act against social justice being discriminative in character as cruel on the part of Employer amounting to punishing a women for her women-hood by depriving her from motherhood or compelling her to join duty during such period when she is entitled for maternity benefits."

The Court clarified that Rule 43(2) is intended to ensure payment of salary equal to the pre-leave pay, not to deny otherwise accrued benefits. It reasoned that if an employee had not taken maternity leave but some other authorized leave, or if the due date fell immediately before or after maternity leave, they would receive the benefit. Excluding the maternity leave period from service tenure for accrual of benefits would be discriminatory.

The judgment stressed that maternity leave is not taken for pleasure or enjoyment but is a biological necessity and duty that only a female can perform. Treating it like other leaves where increments might be deferred is contrary to the spirit of maternity benefits.

> "Motherhood should not be a curse. Maternity leave is not a leave availed for ailment or enjoyment holidays or leave taken for other purpose which can be managed otherwise without going on leave. Duty of giving birth can only be performed by female only... Depriving or denying female employee from any benefit of service during the period of maternity leave, is irrational, unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary and also violative of not only Constitution of India, but also violates essence of Universal Declaration, Conventions and Treaties."

The High Court concluded that denying actual monetary benefits from the due date on account of maternity leave is unsustainable.

The Court directed the respondents to pay actual monetary benefits of the higher pay band to Babli Devi from the due date, May 12, 2019, along with all consequential service benefits, by July 15, 2025. She is also entitled to arrears from the due date with simple interest at 6% per annum until payment.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.