Facts
The applicant was engaged by the Department of Telecommunications as a contractual Young Professional (Category-C—Legal) for an initial period of twelve months pursuant to an appointment offer dated 19 September 2022; she joined on 19 October 2022.
Source reference: p. 2She informed the respondents in February 2023 that she was pregnant, stated that her expected date of delivery was 17 March 2023, and sought 26 weeks of paid maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Source reference: p. 2The respondents did not grant the requested benefit and, by order dated 30 May 2023, stated that she was not entitled to paid maternity leave.
Source reference: p. 2The applicant approached the National Commission for Women and thereafter filed the present Original Application seeking maternity leave and payment of maternity benefits.
Source reference: p. 2The respondents contended that she was a fixed-term contractual Young Professional, governed by engagement guidelines permitting only limited leave, and was not a regular government servant governed by the CCS (Leave) Rules.
Source reference: pp. 7–8They also alleged that she had not disclosed her pregnancy at the time of joining and questioned the applicability of the Maternity Benefit Act to the engagement.
Source reference: pp. 7–8Issues
Whether a woman engaged on a contractual basis as a Young Professional is entitled to maternity leave and maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Source reference: pp. 8–9, 11–12Whether the applicant’s contractual tenure, the terms of her engagement, or her alleged non-disclosure of pregnancy disentitled her from claiming statutory maternity benefits.
Source reference: pp. 7–8Whether the respondents could deny or defer maternity benefits on the ground of administrative uncertainty regarding the applicability of the Maternity Benefit Act to Central Government contractual engagements.
Source reference: pp. 7–8Law Applied
The Tribunal applied Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, under which an eligible woman is entitled to maternity benefit at the prescribed average daily wage, subject principally to having actually worked for at least 80 days in the preceding twelve months, with a maximum maternity-benefit period of 26 weeks.
Source reference: pp. 6–7The Tribunal relied on the constitutional principles underlying maternity relief, equality, dignity and humane conditions of work under Articles 14, 21, 39 and 42 of the Constitution.
Source reference: pp. 4–6It followed Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), (2000) 3 SCC 224, and, in particular, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, Civil Appeal No. 5010/2023, decided on 17 August 2023, for the proposition that maternity benefits extend to women engaged on a contractual basis.
Source reference: pp. 9–11The Tribunal also noted the consistent High Court authorities holding that maternity benefits cannot be denied merely because the employee is contractual, temporary or ad hoc.
Source reference: pp. 4–6, 9Reasoning
The Tribunal held that the decisive legal question was whether contractual status could exclude the applicant from statutory maternity protection.
Source reference: pp. 9–11Applying Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act and the ratio of Dr. Kavita Yadav, it concluded that maternity benefits are statutory and welfare-oriented protections that do not depend upon permanent status or the duration of the employment contract.
Source reference: pp. 9–11The applicant had joined in October 2022 and sought maternity leave in relation to her expected delivery in March 2023, thereby satisfying the statutory employment-period requirement asserted before the Tribunal.
Source reference: pp. 2, 6–7The respondents’ reliance on the limited-leave conditions applicable to Young Professionals and on the absence of regular government-service status could not override the statutory right to maternity benefits.
Source reference: pp. 7–8The Tribunal further treated the respondents’ administrative uncertainty and inter-departmental consultations as insufficient justification for withholding a benefit recognised by statute and binding precedent.
Source reference: p. 8Accordingly, the balance of convenience and merits favoured the applicant.
Source reference: p. 11Holding
The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, holding that the applicant’s contractual engagement did not, by itself, disentitle her from maternity leave and maternity benefits.
The respondents were directed to consider granting her maternity leave and maternity benefits for six months, from 1 March 2023 to 31 August 2023, in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations, and to complete the exercise within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Source reference: pp. 11–12The connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of similarly, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 12Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 19851
Original Court PDF
Shagoon GuptavsDepartment of Telecommunication
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Contractual employees are entitled to statutory maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act.. Shagoon Gupta vs Department of Telecommunication. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/contractual-employees-are-entitled-to-statutory-maternity-benefits-under-the-maternity-ben-216335055cef48239ed32e12e035c116.webp)