Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Contractual Employee Who Was Given Only 2 Months Maternity Leave In 2008

While reiterating that discriminating between regular females employees and those on contractual basis, by denying complete 180 days of maternity leaves to the latter was violative of Article 14 and 21, Rajasthan High Court directed the State to pay additional salary (with interest @ 9% p.a.) of remaining period to the petitioner who was granted only 2 months' maternity leave when applied for in 2008.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that a mother is a mother irrespective of being employed on a regular basis or on contractual basis and newborn babies of contractual workers also had the same right to life as those of regular employees.

“The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses the right to motherhood, as well as the right of every child to receive complete love, care, protection, and development from their mother. Therefore, mothers should be entitled to the same maternity leave benefits that are provided to any female employees, regardless of whether they are employed on a contract or ad-hoc basis.”

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Nurse (Grade II) in 2003. In 2008, the petitioner gave birth to a baby girl and applied for a six-months maternity leave. However, she was sanctioned only two-months leave on the ground that she was a contractual employee.

It was submitted that as per the circular dated November 6, 2007, issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan, contractual employee was entitled to only 2-months maternity leave.

On the other hand, it was argued by the petitioner that as per the notification issued by the Department of Finance that amended Rule 103 to the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 (“the Rules”) the maternity leave period was extended to 180 days without making any distinction between regular and contractual employees.

After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that once Rule 103 was amended, the State could not have discriminated against the contractual employees and such discrimination was violative of Article 14.

“The inalienable right of maternity should not and cannot be a reason to deny equal opportunity to women employees working on contract basis. This precisely would be the result of limiting Maternity Leave to women employees, irrespective of nature of their employment.”

The Court further observed that freedom to bear a child was a fundamental right under Article 21 and the choice to not do so was an extension of this right. Any attempts to prevent a woman from exercising this right violated her fundamental rights and were contrary to principles of natural justice.

Furthermore, the Court also highlighted Article 15(3) as well as Article 42 of the Constitution to opine that the State was obligated to ensure that pregnant working women received all necessary support and protection for their health and that of their child while maintaining their employment.

Referring to multiple decisions in which it was held that no distinction could be made between regular and contractual employees for granting maternity leaves, it was held that,

“The respondents were having no authority to make discrimination between the contractual female employee like the petitioner, when 180 days maternity leaves are being granted to the females working on regular basis. Therefore, the action of the respondents is not only violative of the right to life enshrined under article 21 but also the equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India…If grant of enhanced maternity leave is not possible due to lapse of time, the respondents are directed to pay additional salary for rest of the period as compensation to the petitioner with interest @9% per annum.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and directions were issued to grant 180 days of maternity leave to the petitioner, and if the same was not allowed, then pay her additional salary for the rest of the period, at the rate of 9% per annum, as compensation.

Title: Smt. Basanti Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 104

Click Here To Read/Download Order