Gauhati HC Orders Reconsideration Of Pregnant Contract Worker’s 2-Month Extension, Including Her Maternity Benefit Claim

IASST appointed the petitioner as an Office Assistant on a three-month contractual basis in August 2014, following a recruitment process. Her contract was extended periodically, including for one year in 2015; earlier supervisory remarks were favourable.

In 2018, after the petitioner became pregnant and experienced pregnancy-related ailments, the Institute recorded adverse remarks concerning her performance and regularity and extended her service for only two months, stating that no further extension would be granted.

The petitioner challenged that decision, alleging that it was connected to her pregnancy and contrary to the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. She also said her appeal against the decision had not been considered.

The Institute denied wrongdoing and maintained that contractual extensions depended on work requirements and satisfactory performance.

The Court considered Sections 5 and 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which were invoked by the petitioner in support of her claim to maternity-related protection.

It also considered Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, (2024) 1 SCC 421, cited by the petitioner for the proposition that maternity benefits may apply to contractual employees.

It also recognised that an employer cannot be compelled to continue a contractual employee where the service is not required.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s appointment followed a recruitment process, that her service had been extended repeatedly, and that prior supervisory remarks had been favourable, including a recommendation for a further one-year extension.

Against that history, the adverse remarks made when she was experiencing pregnancy-related ailments required careful scrutiny, particularly because she said they had not been communicated to her.

The Court also observed that subsequent recruitment for similar work suggested that the services might still be required, while acknowledging that contractual employment could not be compelled irrespective of the employer’s needs.

Given that the petitioner’s appeal had not been considered or communicated, the Court found that the Institute should reassess the matter, including her performance record and maternity-benefit claim.

The Court did not order reinstatement or finally decide entitlement to maternity benefits; the petitioner remained at liberty to approach the Court if aggrieved by the Institute’s decision.