Maternity Leave Is A Right, Not A Discretionary Benefit: What The Bombay High Court's Ruling Means For Employers

(Harinie Seenivasan and Arjun Paleri)

The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench, in a judgement delivered in February 2026 has significant implications for how employers across sectors structure and administer maternity leave. In Dr. Meenakshi Mutiah v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the court set aside a penalty imposed on a doctor for availing maternity leave during her service bond period and held that maternity leave cannot be restricted or excluded from service computation, irrespective of the nature of the employment arrangement.

Background

Dr. Meenakshi Muthiah (the “Petitioner”) was appointed as an Assistant Professor under Maharashtra's Social Responsibility Service Scheme (SRSS), a programme that required certain postgraduate doctors to serve in government hospitals for a bond period. During this period, the Petitioner went on her maternity leave. Upon her return, the State Government informed her that the maternity leave would not count toward her service obligation and that she would need to serve out those months additionally to complete her fixed term Further, the State Government imposed a penalty of INR 23,58, 403 on the Petitioner for an alleged failure in completing the bond period. The petitioner challenged the same before the Bombay High Court.

What the Court Held

The Bombay High Court ruled in favour of the Petitioner on all counts with the following key findings:

1. Maternity Leave is a Constitutional Right, not a Statutory Benefit: The provision of maternity leave flows from Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be reduced or removed by any employment contract, service condition, or internal scheme document.

2. No Break in Service: Maternity leave does not constitute a break in service. This applies regardless of whether the employee is permanent, temporary, contractual, fixed-term, or engaged under any other form of arrangement.

3. Prohibition under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (“MB Act”): Under Section 27, the MB Act renders void any contractual provision that restricts these rights. Any agreement or service condition that penalises a woman for availing maternity leave is unenforceable.

4. Other Factors: The right is not affected by marital status or family arrangement. Accordingly, maternity entitlement cannot be denied on the basis that the child was born within a second marriage or that children from a previous marriage live elsewhere.

The penalty was set aside in full, and the Petitioner was held entitled to full salary for her maternity leave period.

Why is this Ruling Important

The facts of this case involve a government scheme, but the legal principles the Court applied are not limited to the public sector or to bond arrangements. They apply to any situation where an employer has structured an employment relationship in a way that either denies maternity leave or treats it differently from other types of leave. The principles will also apply to fixed-term contracts, probationary arrangements, and training agreements that do not contain a maternity leave clause, expressly exclude maternity period from the computation period, or provide for performance-linked or incentive structures where maternity leave periods result in a reduced or withheld payment. 

In each of these situations, the Court's reasoning applies directly. The absence of an express maternity provision in an agreement does not mean the right does not exist. It means the agreement is incomplete, and any attempt to enforce it in a way that penalises maternity leave will not withstand scrutiny.

This is also consistent with a broader pattern in the reasoning adopted by serval courts. In December, the Bombay High Court¹ ruled in favour of a temporary professor who was denied maternity benefits over a technical break in service. Similarly, in a sperate matter², the Bombay High Court granted relief to a contractual doctor, working at a hospital, whose 26-week maternity leave request had been rejected on account of her contractual status. The courts have been consistent across multiple benches and multiple categories of employment.

What Organizations Should Consider

With courts ruling consistently on the uniform provision of maternity benefits, organisations should consider the following:

1. Audit employment contracts across all categories. Organisations should review their permanent, fixed-term, contractual, probationary and other engagement contracts to ensure maternity leave is recognised as qualifying service and is not subject to conditions, including imposition of any penalties.

2. Employment type is not a valid basis to deny or restrict maternity benefits. Organisations should review all related policies or contract terms that distinguishes between categories of employees, as these provisions are at risk and will need to be revised.

3. Review any arrangement that ties a service or completion obligation to a specific period. Organisations that provide bond arrangements, training commitments, probation period, or fixed-term arrangements should expressly account for maternity leave to avoid the outcome in this case.

4. Update approval and payroll processes. Maternity leave should not require discretionary approval, and salary should not be withheld or reduced during the leave period. The entitlement exists independently of internal policy.

Footnotes

1. Dr. Vrushali Vasant Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, WP No. 1521 of 2024.

2. Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors., WP No. 483 of 2025.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.