Maternity leave a fundamental right, cannot count as break in service: Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court

• Bombay High Court rules maternity leave is a fundamental right
• Penalty for bond non-completion due to maternity leave quashed
• Court orders refund of penalty and salary for maternity leave

Did our AI summary help?

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that maternity leave is a fundamental right and cannot be treated as a break in service, setting aside a penalty imposed on a dental professional for allegedly failing to complete her bond period as an Assistant Professor under the Social Responsibility Service Scheme.

A division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode allowed a writ petition filed by a 28-year-old dentist from Coimbatore and quashed a penalty of Rs 23.58 lakh imposed by the Directorate of Medical Education and Research for non completion of a compulsory service bond.

The court observed that service bond conditions cannot override maternity rights and said women cannot be penalised for exercising their right to motherhood under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“No bond can override the right to maternity leave, which is a facet of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any contract, agreement, or bond that penalises a woman for taking maternity leave or seeks to deny her this right is inconsistent with Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961," the judges said.

The bench also ordered that the penalty amount, if already deposited, must be returned within four months. It further directed that the petitioner be paid her salary for the period of maternity leave.

According to the case record, the petitioner completed her Bachelor of Dental Surgery from The Tamil Nadu Dr M.G.R. Medical University in 2018 and finished her one-year Compulsory Rotatory Internship at Chettinad Dental College and Research Institute, Kanchipuram, between October 2018 and October 2019. She later qualified the NEET-MDS and completed her MDS in Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics in 2023.

She was subsequently recommended for appointment as an Assistant Professor in Conservative Dentistry at the Government Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur for a 365 day bond period from December 11, 2023, to December 10, 2024. During this period, she applied for maternity leave from May 1 to September 30, 2024.

After the leave period ended, the petitioner informed the authorities that she was ready to rejoin duty and complete the remaining bond duration. She also stated that she had not been paid her salary during the maternity leave.

However, the Directorate of Medical Education and Research informed the college that the five month maternity leave would not count toward the bond service. The authorities said she would have to work an additional period equivalent to the leave to obtain the bond completion certificate.

They also warned that failure to complete the extended tenure would lead to a financial penalty. A calculation sheet dated December 21, 2024 assessed the penalty at Rs 23.58 lakh, and an order issued on January 6, 2025 directed the petitioner to deposit the amount for alleged non completion of the bond.

Challenging the order before the High Court, the petitioner contended that maternity leave is a fundamental right linked to dignity, health and reproductive choice under Article 21.

During the hearing, the bench emphasised the importance of maternity leave in protecting both mother and child.

The judges observed that maternity leave enables a woman “to take time from her job, give birth, recover, and care for the newborn without fear of losing her employment," noting that the period around childbirth is vital for the health of both mother and child.

Referring to Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the court noted that the provisions of the Act override any inconsistent service rules or contractual obligations.

“She is also entitled to the same protective umbrella as regular employees regarding maternity-related entitlements," the court said.

Allowing the petition, the bench set aside the penalty order dated January 6, 2025 and directed that any amount already paid be refunded within four months. The court also instructed the authorities to either permit the petitioner to complete the remaining bond period, if feasible, or issue a certificate recognising the bond as completed.