Guest lecturers and casual employees are entitled to monetary benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as the statute does not restrict such benefits to regular employees only.

Order on Board

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned action dated 11/08/2025 Annexure P-1 of the respondent No.4., whereby the petitioner has been deprived the monetary benefit of maternity leave on the basis of Clause 11.2 of the Circular dated 20/06/2024.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working since 25/08/2018 as a Guest Lecturer in the respondent’s College. During her pregnancy, the petitioner applied for maternity leave on 11.08.2025 under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which was duly sanctioned. She rejoined duty on 09.02.2026 after availing leave. Upon resumption, the Petitioner claimed monetary benefits under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. However, Respondent No. 4 denied the said claim pursuant to clause 11.2 of circular dated 20.06.2024, which states that guest lecturers are entitled only to maternity leave and not to monetary benefits. Aggrieved by the denial and inaction of the Respondents, the petitioner submitted several representations to the Respondent authorities, but her grievance has not been redressed. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court in WPS No. 3764 of 2019 decided on 30.11.2022 and WPS No.1648 of 2025 decided on 10.03.2025.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that since the petitioner was not a regular employee she cannot claim benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as such, she is not entitled to get monetary benefit.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

5. Before proceeding further it would be noteworthy to mention here that a woman employee, at the time of advanced pregnancy cannot be compelled to undertake hard labour as it would be detrimental to her health and also to the health of the foetus. It is for this reason that it is provided in the Maternity Benefit Act. 1961 that she would be entitled to maternity leave for certain periods prior to and after delivery. I have gone through the different provisions of the Act, but I do not find anything contained in the Act which entitles only regular women employees to the benefit of maternity leave and not to those who are engaged on casual basis or on muster roll on daily wage basis or the employees engaged as guest.

6. In fact, the Act, 1961 was enacted to secure women's right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women with as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker, if they so desire.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Kavita Yadav vs. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and others reported in (2024) 1 SCC 421 held in paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 as under:

“6. The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to whether the maternity benefits, as contemplated in the 1961 Act, would apply to a lady employee appointed on contract if the period for which she claims such benefits overshoots the contractual period.

7. Ms. Rachita Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondentemployer, sought to defend the reasoning given in the judgment under appeal. Her main argument is that once the term or tenure of the contract ends, there cannot be a notional extension of the same by giving the employee the benefits of the 1961 Act in full, as contemplated in Section 5(2) thereof. It is her submission that any benefits that