Maternity Rights Integral Part Of Woman’s Identity, Can't Deny Maternity Benefits To Contractual Employee: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that maternity rights are not something that are based on a statute but they stand to be an integral part of a woman’s identity.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that denial of such rights stand in the way of a woman who chooses to bring a life into the world and thus, violates her fundamental right to life.

“Such denial is indeed against the principle of social justice,” court said.

It reiterated that maternity benefits cannot be denied to a female employee merely because the nature of such employment is contractual. The court observed that denial of maternity benefits is inhumane and in violation of the fundamental rights.

Justice Singh made the observations while dealing with a plea moved by a female attendant at a hostel of Delhi University who was appointed on an ad-hoc basis. Her contractual term was renewed for a period of six months w.e.f. July 02, 2022, till December 31, 2022. She applied for maternity leave from May 05 to November 04 last year and was aggrieved by non grant of salary during the said period. She was also aggrieved by her “sudden termination” and sought reinstatement with six month salary alongwith interest.

Allowing the plea, the court directed the authorities to reinstate the woman on her previous post or any other post as per her eligibility. Justice Singh also directed that she be paid the maternity benefits as per the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.

“Applying the principle of "no work no pay", this Court deems it fit to grant compensation to the petitioner, as she was illegally terminated and therefore, it is also directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner,” the court said.

Furthermore, the court took note of a notification issued by the Delhi University on January 04, 2022, which states that paid maternity leave of 26 weeks should be granted to women who are employed with the varsity on a contractual or ad-hoc basis.

“Bearing in mind the documents on record including the letters dated 19th April 2022 and 21st June 2022 which makes it evident that the petitioner was in fact employed on a contractual basis and her term was further extended, thereby making the aforestated notification applicable to her,” the court said.

Ms. Chandrika Mishra, Ms. Prashasti Singh and Ms. Richa Rajesh, Advocates appeared for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms. Priya Singh, Advocate appeared for Delhi University.

Case Title: NEELAM KUMARI v. THE UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 945

Click Here To Read Order