Maternity leave is a fundamental right under Article 21; bond service cannot penalize motherhood.

The petitioner completed her Master of Dental Surgery (MDS) in 2023

Under the 'Social Responsibility Service' (Bond Service) scheme, she was appointed as an Assistant Professor at Government Dental College, Nagpur, for a mandatory bond period of 365 days (11/12/2023 to 10/12/2024)

In March 2024, the petitioner became pregnant and was granted maternity leave from 01/05/2024 to 30/09/2024

Following her leave, she requested to complete the remaining bond period; however, the Respondents determined she had defaulted on the 365-day requirement

Consequently, the Respondent No. 3 issued an order on 06/01/2025 imposing a penalty of ₹23,58,403/- for non-completion of the bond period

The petitioner challenged this imposition as a violation of her fundamental rights

1. Whether the right to maternity leave is a fundamental right that overrides bond conditions or administrative regulations in the absence of specific provisions

2. Whether a candidate under a compulsory bond service can be penalized for a "break in service" caused by pregnancy and childbirth

The court primarily applied Article 21 of the Constitution of India, interpreting the right to life to include the right to live with human dignity and protection of health

It relied on Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which mandates that the Act’s provisions override any inconsistent contract or service terms

The court further integrated principles from *K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu* [(2025) 8 SCC 263], emphasizing that motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care under Article 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and *Commissioner of Police v. Ravina Yadav* [(2024) SCC OnLine Del 4987], which qualifies maternity leave as a matter of social justice and constitutional guarantee

The Court reasoned that the object of the Compulsory Rural Service Bond is to ensure public service in exchange for subsidized education

but this state interest cannot supersede the fundamental right to motherhood.

The Court observed that pregnancy involves major physiological and psychological changes, and the postnatal period is critical for the infant's neurological and emotional development

It held that denying maternity leave or penalizing a woman for it constitutes a violation of human dignity under Article 21

The Court rejected the Respondents' argument that the lack of specific provisions in the Bond Service Scheme justified the penalty, stating that Section 27 of the 1961 Act nullifies any bond condition that penalizes a woman for exercising maternity rights

Furthermore, it held that maternity leave cannot be treated as a "break in service" but must be considered as "duty period" for the purpose of bond completion

It held that the maternity leave period must be treated as duty period and directed the Respondents to pay the petitioner her salary for said period

The Court ordered the refund of any penalty already paid within four months

and directed that the petitioner be permitted to complete any remaining bond period (excluding the leave now treated as duty), or be issued a completion certificate if such completion is not feasible