01Facts
The petitioner had worked as a Guest Lecturer in Political Science at Government Gundadhur P.G. College, Kondagaon, since 16 August 2024. After taking maternity leave, she rejoined on 19 August 2026.
¶ 1–2She sought monetary benefits for the leave period, but the respondents did not release them, relying on Clause 11.2 of a circular dated 17 July 2026. She had submitted representations dated 29 May 2026 and 5 August 2026. The writ petition sought consideration of those representations, quashing of Clause 11.2, and a revised circular extending maternity benefits to Guest Lecturers
¶ 1–202Issues
i.Whether a Guest Lecturer is entitled to monetary maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, notwithstanding her non-regular employment status
¶ 3, 5, 8–9ii.Whether the respondents could deny the petitioner’s claim on the basis that she was a Guest Lecturer and under Clause 11.2 of the circular dated 17 July 2026
¶ 1–3, 8–1003Law Applied
Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 provides for maternity benefits upon fulfilment of the statutory conditions; the Act does not confine those benefits to regular employees. Under Section 12(2)(a), maternity benefits may continue even where employment ends during pregnancy, and Section 27 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent agreements or contracts of service.
¶ 7The Court relied on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), which extended statutory maternity benefits to casual and daily-wage workers, and on Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department (2024) 1 SCC 421, which held that accrued maternity benefits may extend beyond the term of employment. It also referred to Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal for the protective purpose of maternity-benefit legislation
¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 4
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Section 2Section 5Section 12Section 27
04Reasoning
The Court found no provision in the Act limiting maternity benefits to regular employees and applied the Supreme Court authorities extending such protections to non-regular workers.
¶ 5–9The respondents did not contend that the petitioner’s work differed from that of a regular Lecturer; the petitioner performed the same duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, her Guest Lecturer status was not a sufficient ground to deny maternity benefits, and the respondents were required to address her claim for unpaid salary for the maternity-leave period
¶ 5–905Holding
The Court held that maternity benefits could not be denied merely because the petitioner was employed as a Guest Lecturer.
¶ 9–10It directed the respondents to take an appropriate decision, in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, on her claim for unpaid salary during maternity leave, preferably within three months of receiving the order. The operative direction did not expressly quash Clause 11.2 or order immediate payment of a specified amount
¶ 9–10Original Court PDF
PUSHPA JAISWALvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
