Maternity leave does not extend a contractual appointment terminated upon regular appointment.

The petitioner was engaged as a contractual Assistant Professor in the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at Late Bisahu Das Mahant Memorial Government Medical College, Korba.

Her appointment order dated 16 November 2022 provided for contractual engagement for one year or until a regularly appointed candidate joined, whichever was earlier, and was governed by the Chhattisgarh Government Contract Appointment Rules, 2012 and the applicable contractual conditions, including one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof.

The petitioner applied for 180 days’ paid maternity leave from 01 August 2026 to 28 January 2027, which was recommended by the Head of Department.

During this period, the respondents issued an order dated 06 August 2026 proposing to terminate/discontinue her services with effect from 05 September 2026 on account of the joining of a regularly appointed candidate.

Whether the petitioner’s contractual engagement could be discontinued upon the joining of a regularly appointed candidate, despite her application for maternity leave.

Whether Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 required continuation of the petitioner’s contractual appointment and entitled her to 180 days’ paid maternity leave.

Whether the impugned order dated 06 August 2026 was arbitrary, illegal or otherwise amenable to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the terms of the petitioner’s appointment order and the Chhattisgarh Government Contract Appointment Rules, 2012, under which the contractual engagement was valid only for one year or until the appointment of a regular candidate, whichever was earlier, subject to one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof.

It also considered Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which protects an eligible woman from dismissal or disadvantage during the period connected with maternity benefits.

The Court considered the principle stated in Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, (2024) 1 SCC 421, concerning protection of maternity benefits, but held that the decision was factually distinguishable where the contractual engagement itself ended in accordance with its governing terms upon the joining of a regular appointee.

The Court found that the petitioner’s appointment was expressly conditional and liable to end upon the joining of a regularly appointed candidate.

The discontinuance was therefore not treated as a punitive termination or as a denial of maternity leave during the subsistence of the contract; rather, the contractual assignment had come to an end under the agreed appointment terms.

Since the respondents had also given one month’s notice, the contractual condition was complied with.

Accordingly, the protection relied upon under Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act and Dr. Kavita Yadav did not require continuation of an appointment that had lawfully ceased under its own terms.

The impugned order dated 06 August 2026 was upheld as being in accordance with the contractual appointment terms, and the reliance on Dr. Kavita Yadav was rejected as distinguishable.

The writ petition was dismissed at the motion stage for want of merit.