Contractual employment cannot deny entitlement to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 if eligibility conditions are met.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

This writ petition was admitted on 22^nd March, 2019.

2. It is petitioner's case that it is an association established with the sole purpose of upliftment of staff nurses working on various scheme sanctioned posts in the State of Tamil Nadu. One such scheme is National Rural Heath Mission (NRHM) Scheme floated by the Government of India with a view to enhance the health care in rural areas.

3. Under the NRHM scheme, the Central Government provides funds to the State Government for the appointment of Doctors, Nurses, Pharmacists and other health care professionals. The State Government recruits the health care professionals in its rolls and uses these funds to pay them salary. The State of Tamil Nadu had recruited more than 11,000 staff nurses through competitive exams on a consolidated pay of Rs.7,000/- per month, which was later revised to Rs.14,000/- per month, pursuant to judicial order.

4. It is the case of petitioner that the nurses have been working for more than two years and, therefore, would be eligible for maternity leave of 270 days with pay as per the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (“the1961 Act”). It is petitioner's case that maternity benefits have been denied by the State Government to NRHM nurses because they were contractual employees. Against this denial of maternity benefits, petition has been filed seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents to extend maternity benefits, including 270 days of paid maternity leave, in accordance with the provisions of the 1961 Act.

5. Respondents in the affidavit-in-reply, relying on the appointment and posting orders, one of which is dated 30^th October, 2015 and a copy whereof forms part of the compilation filed, states that nurses are not eligible for any kind of leave as applicable to the regular Government servants except for the casual leave of one day for one month and day off. It is also stated that, in any other untoward exceptional circumstances, any individual is permitted to avail the leave other than the leave specified above that will be treated as leave on loss of pay.

6. The Apex Court, in a recent judgment in Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and others , (2024) 1 SCC 421 has held that once lady employee fulfills entitlement criteria specified in Section 5 (2), she would be eligible for full maternity benefits even if such benefits exceed duration of her contract. The Court has also held that maternity benefits are not coterminous with employment tenure.

In that case, the Apex Court was considering a similar matter, where a Pathology Doctor, who was appointed as Senior Resident (Pathology) in an institute under the Government of NCT of Delhi, was denied maternity benefits on the ground that she was a contractual employee. Her challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal failed and the Delhi High Court upheld the view of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In fact, the Delhi High Court went on to hold that if petitioner's case was accepted and granted leave, it would clearly tantamount to unintended extension of the contractual employment. Therefore, the main question which fell for determination before the Apex Court was whether maternity benefits as contemplated under 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. The Apex Court, following the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, Chandigarh , (2023) 13 SCC 681 held that the 1961 Act was enacted to secure women's right to pregnancy and maternity leave