Maternity benefits cannot be claimed if the leave commences after the expiry of a fixed-term contractual appointment.

Respondent No. 3 was appointed as an Assistant Professor on an ad-hoc contractual basis for two fixed terms, the latter ending on 30th April 2024

On 27th March 2024, while still employed, she applied for maternity leave to commence on 14th June 2024 (expected delivery: 18th July 2024)

The Petitioner-College contended her employment ceased by efflux of time on 30th April 2024 and denied benefits since the leave period started after the contract expired

Respondent No. 2 (Inspector) and Respondent No. 1 (Appellate Authority) concurrently ruled in favor of Respondent No. 3, directing the Petitioner to pay ₹2,43,500/- in benefits

The Petitioner challenged these orders via Writ Petition.

The court applied Section 5(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which prescribes a qualifying period of 80 days of work in the twelve months preceding the delivery

It emphasized Section 12 of the Act, which protects women from "discharge or dismissal" during pregnancy or maternity absence

While maternity benefits can extend beyond a contract term, the leave must commence during the subsistence of the employer-employee relationship (Distinguishing Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare)

The court also distinguished Dr. Manisha Priyadarshini v. Aurobindo College-Evening, which pertains to discriminatory non-renewal of contracts specifically due to pregnancy

The court reasoned that a subsisting employer-employee relationship is a prerequisite for claiming leave. Unlike the precedent in Dr. Kavita Yadav, where the employee's maternity leave began before the contract expired, Respondent No. 3's leave was sought to begin nearly 1.5 months after her contract ended by efflux of time

The court found that Section 12 was not attracted because there was no "discharge or dismissal"; the employment ended automatically via the contract's fixed terms, and there was no evidence of premature termination due to pregnancy

Consequently, because Respondent No. 3 was no longer an employee on the date the leave was to commence, the Petitioner had no statutory obligation to provide benefits

It held that Respondent No. 3 is not entitled to maternity benefits because the employer-employee relationship had ceased to exist prior to the commencement of the requested leave period

The court concluded that maternity benefits cannot be claimed from a former employer after the natural expiration of a fixed-term ad-hoc contract