Part-Time Contractual Employees Are Entitled For Maternity Benefits Even If Terms Of Appointment State Otherwise: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on Tuesday (September 10) disposed of a 2015 writ petition by setting aside with the communications informing the petitioners that maternity leave benefits are available only to regular employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS).

Background facts

The petitioner in the matter was a part-time contract teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya from 29.06.2012 to 04.03.2015 with breaks between terms. She delivered her child on 12.04.2015 and after delivery of the baby boy, the petitioner did not apply for continuation of her service. On filing an RTI, the petitioner's husband was informed that maternity leave benefits are extended to permanent teachers only and not to contractual teachers. It was further stated that reference may be made to their terms and conditions of appointment

Sections 5 and 8 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 grant the Right to payment of maternity benefit and medical bonus, respectively, to “every” woman, subject to the provisions of the Act. Relying on these sections, the petitioners submitted that no distinction has been drawn about the nature of appointment to be entitled to the benefits. Thus, a woman employee is entitled to receive maternity benefits irrespective of being a permanent, temporary or contract employee.

The respondents argued that the petitioner had only raised the issue after her contract had ended and failed to disclose her pregnancy during her employment. They submitted that being a part-time contractual teacher, she was ineligible for maternity benefits as per KVS rules. Further, it was highlighted that the petitioner had signed an undertaking agreeing not to claim any benefits apart from her salary, nor to seek regular employment.

Findings of the Court

It was observed that the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) (2000) held that the provisions of the Act of 1961 would be applicable to woman employees irrespective of their nature of engagement. Further, in Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and Ors (2024), the Apex Court had held that it the maternity benefits can survive or go beyond the duration of employment of an employee. Even in a case where the applicant woman dies after delivery of the child, the benefit as per the last proviso to Section 5(3) of the Act of 1961 would be available.

Section 27 (1) of the Act states that- “The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the coming into force of this Act.” The Apex Court further opined that by virtue of the operation of Section 27, the same would override any agreement or contract of service found inconsistent with the Act of 1961.

Justice Nelson Sailo, while dismissing the present writ petition, regarded the decisions of the Supreme Court and held that the petitioner would be entitled to maternity benefits in view of Section 5, 8 and 27 of the Act of 1961. It was directed by the Court to complete the entire exercise of disbursing the benefits within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order. It was further clarified by Justice Nelson Sailo that “the amount to be received by the petitioner shall not be only restricted to the amount claimed by her but would also include any such other computation admissible in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1961.”

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s): Mr. S Banik

For Respondent(s): Mr. S C Biswas

Case Title: Mrs. Sangeeta Kormel Yadav v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No: WP(C)/6973/2015

Click Here To Read/Download Order