Guest Lecturers are entitled to full monetary maternity benefits, regardless of their non-regular employment status.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Guest Lecturer in a Government College on 25.08.2018

During her pregnancy, she applied for maternity leave on 11.08.2025, which was sanctioned. She rejoined her duties on 09.02.2026 and subsequently claimed monetary benefits under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

Respondent No. 4 denied the claim for monetary benefits based on Clause 11.2 of a Circular dated 20.06.2024, which stipulated that Guest Lecturers are entitled only to leave and not to monetary compensation

The State contended that as a non-regular employee, the Petitioner was ineligible for benefits under the 1961 Act

1. Whether a woman employee engaged as a Guest Lecturer is entitled to monetary benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, despite restrictive departmental circulars.

2. Whether the benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 are limited to regular employees or extend to those on casual, muster roll, or contractual basis.

The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, noting that the statute does not distinguish between regular, casual, or guest employees

Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department (2024) 1 SCC 421, which established that maternity benefits can travel beyond the term of employment and that the term "discharge" includes conclusion of a contract

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) (2000) 3 SCC 224, which extended benefits to daily wage workers based on Articles 14, 15, 39, and 42 of the Constitution of India

Under Section 27 of the 1961 Act, the statute overrides any inconsistent agreement or contract of service

The Court reasoned that the 1961 Act was enacted to safeguard a woman’s right to pregnancy and professional autonomy, ensuring that childbearing does not hinder her entitlement to wages

It found that the nature of the Petitioner’s duties as a Guest Lecturer was identical to those of a regular Lecturer.

Applying the Kavita Yadav precedent, the Court held that once an employee fulfills the entitlement criteria under Section 5(2) of the Act, the benefits accrue regardless of the contractual nature of the job or the duration of the contract

The Court rejected the State's reliance on the 2024 Circular, implying that statutory rights under the Maternity Benefit Act override restrictive administrative instructions

The Court directed the Respondents to take an appropriate decision in light of the 1961 Act and release the Petitioner’s unpaid salary for the maternity leave period within three months. The petition was disposed of accordingly