The judgment clarifies that eligibility for maternity benefits requires the completion of a specified duration of service prior to claiming such rights under the Maternity Benefit Act.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026 The writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P7, an order of recovery of the excess salary paid to the petitioner for the period from 29.01.2016.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, at the time of joining service, she was 20 weeks pregnant. Initially, the petitioner approached the authority seeking extension of her joining time on account of her pregnancy. However, the said request was rejected, and she was directed to join duty and avail maternity leave from the 32^nd week of pregnancy. Accordingly, maternity leave was granted to her from 03.08.2015 to 30.01.2016, as her expected date of delivery was 27.10.2015. In this regard, the 4^th respondent recommended to the competent authority the sanction of maternity leave for a period of 180 days commencing from 03.08.2015 to 30.01.2016.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner sought an additional two months’ leave as Child Care Leave. The said request was rejected, as evidenced by Ext.P5, and she was directed to report for duty. It is the case of the petitioner that, for the said purpose, she had to avail Extraordinary Leave, which was sanctioned as leave on loss of pay. In this regard, she was also informed that her probation was extended by one year up to 19.06.2017 on account of her having availed 180 days of maternity leave and a further two months’ leave on loss of pay during the probationary period from 19.06.2015 to 19.06.2016. Thereafter, she completed the extended period of probation as well. However, she is aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P7, whereby recovery of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month for a period of 14 months was ordered to be effected from her salary.

4. Hence, the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P7 on the ground that a woman employee, at the time of her advanced pregnancy, is entitled to maternity leave with the benefits envisaged under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act (for short the ‘MB Act’). It is contended that she is entitled to a total period of 180 days’ leave, both prior to and after delivery, and therefore the impugned recovery is unsustainable.

5. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Another [ (2000) 3 SCC 224 ], it is held that Sections 2, 3(b), (c), (h), (o) and (n), 5 to 6, 8 to 12, 21, 23 and 27 entitle maternity leave even to women engaged on casual basis or on muster roll basis on daily wages. Here, the petitioner who was appointed as a regular employee while in an advanced stage of pregnancy, cannot be denied maternity leave with the accompanying benefits. It is illegal, against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the fundamental rights and equality envisaged under the Constitution of India to deduct such benefits, once granted by the competent authority, at a later point of time from her salary under the guise of overtime allowance.

6. In response to the contentions raised, respondents 1 to 5 have filed a counter affidavit. It is specifically stated therein that the petitioner’s appointment was delayed until June 2015 for certain reasons. She was appointed in the Karnataka Region. According to the respondents, the delay was not attributable to them, but was due to the time taken to process her case on account of her educational qualification not being exactly in conformity with the qualifications prescribed under the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 and as notified in the relevant recruitment advertisement. Therefore, her qualification had to be examined to ensure its equivalence with the prescribed qualification. It is further stated that there were about 30 such cases in the South Zone where the qualifications had to be scrutinized