Denying Maternity Benefits To Contractual Employee 'Abhorrent' To Womanhood: Orissa High Court

While dismissing a writ appeal against the judgment of a Single Bench, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo further observed –

“Denying maternity benefit on the basis of nature of employment is abhorrent to the notions of humanity and womanhood. Our Smrutikaaraas chanted “yatr naaryaastu pujyante ramante tatr devatah”, literally meaning that Gods rejoice where women are honoured. Such ideal things should animate the purposive interpretation of State Policy concerning the welfare of women.”

Case Background

Pursuant to an advertisement by the General Administrative Department of the Government, the respondent (petitioner in the writ petition) applied for the post of 'Young Professional' and was duly appointed. While continuing as such, she was blessed with a female child for which she applied for maternity leave with effect from 17.08.2016 to 12.02.2017, but the same was rejected bereft of assigning any reason.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of her leave, she filed a writ petition. The Single Bench, after discussing the law regarding maternity leave, was of the opinion that the respondent was unjustly denied the benefit. Therefore, it directed the authorities to extend the benefit of maternity leave to the respondent. The government authorities filed this writ appeal against the said order.

It was the contention of the appellant-Government that the respondent being a contractual employee, she was not entitled to the benefit of maternity leave. Also, if the policy governing her appointment does not provide for any such leave, she cannot be given the benefit. Hence, it argued that the Single Judge erred in passing direction in her favour.

Contractual employee also entitled to maternity benefits

The contention of the authorities regarding non-eligibility of contractual employee for maternity benefits did not cut the mustard. The Division Bench discarded such argument by citing a catena of rulings from different Constitutional Courts, including that of the Supreme Court in Dr. Kabita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health & Welfare Department, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 701.

The Court was of the view that considering the ruling of the Apex Court in Kabita Yadav as well as Finance Department Memorandum dated 31.03.2012, it was incumbent upon the appellant authorities to grant maternity leave to the respondent.

The contention that the memorandum applies only to the Civil servants was also rejected. It was held that for the purpose of availing such benefit, all women constitute one homogenous class and their artificial bifurcation founded on status of appointment falls afoul of Article 14 of the Constitution.

“A Welfare State cannot be heard to say that a Policy of the kind has to be kept away regardless of its socio-welfare object to serve all classes of persons employed in the State, whatever be the nature of such engagement,” it added.

'Zero separation' between lactating mother and her new-born

The Court cited provisions of international conventions like Article 10(2) of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural and Rights (ICESCR) and Article 11(2)(b) of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to stress on the need for eliminating all possible barriers between a lactating mother and her new born baby. In the erudite words of Justice Shripad –

“It is said that God could not be everywhere and therefore he created mothers. The idea of maternity leave is structured on “zero separation” between lactating mother and breast feeding baby...A lactating mother has a fundamental right to breastfeed her baby during its formative years. Similarly, baby has a fundamental right to be breastfed and brought about in a reasonably good condition.”

The Bench reminded that India being a signatory to such conventions, it has a duty to honour their objectives through its policies. One of the primary objectives being extending maternity benefits to all women employees irrespective of their nature of employment. This position also found support from landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and Jolly George Verghese v. The Bank of Cochin (1980).

Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the Single Bench directing the authorities to provide maternity leave to the respondent was upheld.

Case Title: State of Odisha & Anr. v. Smt. Anindita Mishra

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 1074 of 2023

Date of Judgment: June 24, 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: None

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 84