Contractual employees are entitled to maternity benefits extending beyond the contractual period, as per the Maternity Benefit Act, recognizing women's rights irrespective of employment status.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by denial of maternity benefits and termination of petitioner who was working as contractual employee. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs-

"a) issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of stenographer on contractual basis and not to replace the petitioner with similarly situated contractual employees; and

b) issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay/grant all the maternity benefits to the petitioners of maternity leave;

c) issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary/remuneration to the Petitioner for period from 01.07.2019 till illegal termination of service i.e., 17.10.2019.

d) pass such and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. On 7th February 2013, the petitioner was appointed as a stenographer on a contractual basis for a period of one year with the respondent no. 3 i.e., Delhi State Consumer Forum, on the terms and conditions enumerated in the offer letter of appointment. The said contract was extended by one year on 10th March 2014, w.e.f., 11th February 2014.

3. The said contract was extended further as per the appointment letter dated 20th March 2015, w.e.f. 13th February 2015, till 31st March 2015. Pursuant to this, the appointment of the petitioner was extended from 1st April 2015 till 31st March 2016 vide an appointment letter dated 28th August 2015.

4. The tenure of the petitioner was again extended from 2nd April 2016, to 31st March 2017, vide letter dated 28th September 2016, pursuant to which petitioner was given extension from 2nd April 2017, to 31st March 2018, vide letter dated 21st July 2017.

5. The petitioner on 28th February 2018, submitted a letter to respondent no. 3's office for maternity leave of 180 days w.e.f., 1st March 2018, to 31st August 2018, and went on leave from 1st March 2018.

6. When the petitioner joined back on 28th August 2018, the respondent no. 3 did not allow the petitioner to resume her duties, since the petitioner's contract was not extended after the expiry of the contract on 31st March 2018.

7. The petitioner was allowed to join subsequently, vide an appointment letter dated 15th November 2018, whereby, the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis w.e.f. 8th September 2018, till 30th June 2019.

8. On 17th October 2019, the petitioner was informed that her services were no longer required and was further directed to not to come on duty from the next day. Subsequent to this, petitioner sought clarification with respect to the reasons for issuance of such directions but the Registrar of the respondent no.3 did not assign any reasons. On alleged repeated requests, petitioner was told that the proposals for extension of services of two stenographers were sent to the Finance Department but only one was approved.

9. Pursuant to the directions passed by the respondent on 17th October 2019, the petitioner regularly visited the office respondent no. 3, but she was neither allowed to join her duties nor was given any written communication in