Contractual employee entitled to maternity leave even beyond contract period, Chhattisgarh High Court rules

The appellant was appointed as a contractual Assistant Professor with effect from 16 November 2022.

Although a regular appointee joined the post on 25 June 2026, the appellant continued in service.

On 31 July 2026, while still serving, she applied for 180 days’ paid maternity leave, with the application recommended by her Head of Department.

Before the application was decided, the authorities issued her a one-month termination notice on 6 August 2026.

The Single Judge dismissed her writ petition challenging the rejection of maternity benefits and the termination notice; she appealed.

1. Whether the appellant’s application for maternity leave, made while she continued in contractual service, could be rejected because a regular employee had joined the post.

2. Whether the termination notice issued after the appellant applied for maternity leave could stand in light of the protections under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

The Court applied the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department & Ors., (2024) 1 SCC 421.

As explained in Dr. Kavita Yadav, maternity benefits under the Act may extend beyond the period of employment; the prohibition on discharge under Section 12(2)(a) includes discharge on expiry of a contractual term, and Section 27 overrides inconsistent contractual terms.

The Court also relied on the statutory scheme governing entitlement and duration of maternity benefits under Sections 5(2) and 5(3).

The appellant submitted her maternity-leave application on 31 July 2026, while she was still continuing in contractual service; the authorities issued the termination notice only on 6 August 2026.

The regular appointee’s earlier joining did not alter that fact, since the appellant had been permitted to continue in the post.

Applying Dr. Kavita Yadav, the Court held that maternity benefits could not be denied merely because the leave period would extend beyond the contractual period.

The application therefore could not be rejected on the ground that a regular employee had joined.