1. Contractual employee challenged denial of maternity leave based on a restrictive appointment condition, asserting entitlement to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 34186
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Bipin Gupta, J
Shivangi Khandelwal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1561/2023
Important Points
Maternity benefits are a statutory right and a matter of social justice that cannot be denied to women employees based on the nature of their employment (contractual, casual, or regular) or restrictive contractual clauses, as statutory protections override inconsistent service contracts.
Subject
Service Law - Maternity Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Maternity Benefits - Contractual Employment - Entitlement - Denial of maternity leave to a contractual employee based on a restrictive clause in the appointment order is illegal. Statutory protections under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, override inconsistent contractual terms. (Para 6.4, 7.2)
(B) Statutory Overriding Effect - Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Provisions of the Act prevail over any agreement or contract of service that is inconsistent with the statutory mandate. (Para 6.5, 7.2)
(C) Constitutional Rights - Articles 14, 21, and 42 - Maternity benefit is a fundamental right rooted in dignity and social justice, ensuring women are not forced to choose between motherhood and livelihood. (Para 6.1, 6.9)
Issues: Whether a contractual employee can be denied maternity leave based on a restrictive condition in the appointment order.
Result: Petition allowed; maternity benefits granted.
(B) Statutory Overriding Effect - Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - Provisions of the Act prevail over any agreement or contract of service that is inconsistent with the statutory mandate. (Para 6.5, 7.2)
(C) Constitutional Rights - Articles 14, 21, and 42 - Maternity benefit is a fundamental right rooted in dignity and social justice, ensuring women are not forced to choose between motherhood and livelihood. (Para 6.1, 6.9)
Issues: Whether a contractual employee can be denied maternity leave based on a restrictive condition in the appointment order.
Result: Petition allowed; maternity benefits granted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to life and personal liberty
- right to equality and non-discrimination
- directive principles of state policy
-
fundamental rights
-
labor and employment law
- maternity benefits
- contractual employment
-
administrative law
- statutory interpretation
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shamboo Singh Rathore, Ayushi Rathore, Shivani Rathore
For the Respondents: Praveen Kumar Choudhary, Sajjan Singh Rathore
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shamboo Singh Rathore, Ayushi Rathore, Shivani Rathore
For the Respondents: Praveen Kumar Choudhary, Sajjan Singh Rathore
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contended contractual status does not negate statutory maternity rights; Respondents argued appointment terms expressly excluded all leave except official holidays. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Maternity leave is a fundamental statutory and constitutional entitlement to preserve maternal health and dignity, applicable to all women employees, including those on contractual, ad-hoc, or casual basis. (Para 6 )
4. Impugned denial quashed; respondents directed to grant maternity benefits for 180 days with due remuneration within three months. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Can an employer deny maternity leave to a contractual employee based on a clause in the appointment order?
No, maternity benefits are statutory rights under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which override any inconsistent contractual terms. The nature of employment—whether regular, contractual, or casual—cannot defeat a woman's right to maternity protection. (Para 7 )
Judgment / Order
Reportable
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the letter dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure 3), issued by respondent No. 2, the Member Secretary, SEAC-I, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Headquarter, 4, Institutional Area, Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner's request for maternity leave was rejected on the ground that, in terms of Condition No. 5 of the appointment order dated 25.07.2022, no leave other than the declared holidays of the State Government was permissible.
2. The facts in a narrow compass are, that the petitioner was engaged as a 'Consultant (AEE)' on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 40,000/- per month, pursuant to her selection by the State Environment Appraisal Committee (SEAC)-I and II, Government of Rajasthan. Her engagement was for a period of one year from the date of joining, which, in the present case, was 04.08.2022, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment order dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure 1).
2.1 During the course of her engagement, the petitioner submitted an application dated 07.12.2022 (Annexure 2), seeking maternity leave for a period of six months commencing from 26.12.2022, as advised by her doctor. However, vide letter dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure 3), respondent No. 2 rejected her request on the ground that Condition No. 5 of the appointment order dated 25.07.2022 permitted only the declared holidays of the State Government and prohibited the grant of any additional leave.
2.2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure 5) upon the respondents, seeking reconsideration of her request for maternity leave. In support of her claim, the petitioner relied upon the letter dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure 4), issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, as well as the judgment rendered by this Court in Hemlata Saraswata v. State of Rajasthan , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4237/2006, (Decided on 29.01.2008). The petitioner requested that her claim be considered and decided accordingly. However, neither was maternity leave granted to her nor was any reply furnished to the legal notice. Hence, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the action of respondent No. 2 in denying maternity leave to the petitioner with effect from 26.12.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. Learned counsel contended that Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 , provides for maternity leave to a female government employee for a period of 180 days, subject to the applicable conditions.
3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide its letter dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure 4), clarified that women employed in any capacity, whether directly or through an agency, including on a contractual basis or as consultants, are entitled to maternity leave. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the petitioner's contractual engagement could not, by itself, constitute a valid ground for denying her maternity benefits.
3.2 Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Hemlata Saraswata (supra), wherein directions were issued for extending maternity leave benefits to employees receiving a consolidated salary. Learned counsel thus submitted that the denial of the same benefit to the petitioner, despite the settled legal position in the aforesaid judgment, was arbitrary and unjustified.
3.3 Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Rolls) ; 2000 (3) SCC 224, wherein the benefit of maternity leave was recognized even in respect of women employed on a casual basis or on a muster-roll basis. Learned counsel further submitted that the statutory scheme of maternity protection could not be defeated merely by classi
