{"id":9919,"date":"2026-10-20T16:38:41","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T16:38:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/?p=9919"},"modified":"2026-10-20T16:38:43","modified_gmt":"2026-10-20T16:38:43","slug":"contractual-women-employees-eligible-for-180-days-of-maternity-leave-rules-rajasthan-high-court-directs-payment-of-benefits-within-three-months","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/contractual-women-employees-eligible-for-180-days-of-maternity-leave-rules-rajasthan-high-court-directs-payment-of-benefits-within-three-months\/","title":{"rendered":"Contractual Women Employees Eligible for 180 Days of Maternity Leave, Rules Rajasthan High Court; Directs Payment of Benefits Within Three Months"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Jodhpur:<\/strong> The Rajasthan High Court has held that a woman employee cannot be denied maternity benefits merely because she was appointed on a contractual basis. The Court set aside an order refusing maternity leave to Shivangi Khandelwal, a consultant associated with the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, and directed the authorities to grant her 180 days of maternity benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Bipin Gupta allowed Khandelwal\u2019s petition and directed the concerned authorities to provide maternity benefits from December 26, 2022, along with payment for the relevant period in accordance with the applicable rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court further directed the authorities to complete the process within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court observed that maternity benefits are not merely a leave facility but a legal protection linked to a woman\u2019s health, dignity and the care of her child. Conditions imposed through an appointment order cannot override maternity benefits available under the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consultant Appointed on a Monthly Remuneration of \u20b940,000<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The case arose from Khandelwal\u2019s appointment as a Consultant (AEE) following her selection by the Rajasthan State Environment Appraisal Committee (SEAC).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She was appointed on July 25, 2022, on a consolidated monthly remuneration of \u20b940,000. Her initial contractual appointment was for one year, and she joined duty on August 4, 2022. The initial contract was due to expire on August 3, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On December 7, 2022, Khandelwal applied for six months of maternity leave on medical advice, beginning December 26, 2022, and continuing until June 25, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The entire period of leave she sought fell within her initial contractual term. However, the authorities rejected her request on December 16, 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maternity Leave Denied Citing Appointment Conditions<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The authorities relied on Condition No. 5 of Khandelwal\u2019s appointment order, which restricted her leave entitlement to holidays declared by the State Government and did not permit other forms of leave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The State Government argued before the High Court that Khandelwal had been appointed on a contractual basis for one year through the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board. Her appointment conditions did not provide for additional leave, and the continuation of her services depended on satisfactory performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Khandelwal, on the other hand, argued that contractual employment could not be used as a ground to deny maternity benefits available under the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Her counsel relied on Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and judgments of the Supreme Court to contend that an eligible woman employee was entitled to maternity leave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal Notice Failed to Secure Maternity Benefits<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

On December 22, 2022, Khandelwal sent a legal notice to the concerned authorities, requesting reconsideration of her application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She relied on a letter issued by the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment on April 12, 2017, as well as an earlier Rajasthan High Court judgment, in support of her claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite the notice, the authorities did not grant her maternity leave or respond to the legal notice. She subsequently approached the High Court challenging the rejection of her request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contractual Appointment Cannot Override Statutory Maternity Benefits<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The principal question before the High Court was whether an appointment condition prohibiting leave other than government-declared holidays could override a woman\u2019s legal entitlement to maternity benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After examining the record, the Court found that Khandelwal\u2019s application had been rejected solely on the basis of the appointment condition. The authorities had not independently examined her eligibility under the applicable maternity benefit law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court held that denying maternity benefits merely by relying on a contractual condition was inconsistent with the purpose of the law and the principles laid down in earlier judicial decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It emphasised that the nature of an appointment\u2014whether regular, temporary, casual or contractual\u2014cannot, by itself, be the decisive ground for denying maternity benefits. Eligibility must be assessed in accordance with the applicable law and the circumstances of the individual case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maternity Benefits Protect Health, Dignity and Childcare<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The High Court explained that maternity benefits are not equivalent to ordinary leave granted as a service-related convenience. Their purpose is to protect a woman\u2019s health, dignity and well-being during pregnancy and after childbirth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court observed that maternity protection also helps ensure that childbirth does not unfairly affect a woman\u2019s employment-related rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It noted that women should not be forced to choose between motherhood and their livelihood. The Court also referred to the constitutional principles of equality and dignity, along with Article 42 of the Constitution, which directs the State to make provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court Judgments on Maternity Benefits Considered<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), in which maternity benefits were not confined to women employed on a regular basis. The judgment recognised that women working on a casual basis or on muster rolls could also be entitled to maternity protection, subject to the applicable requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also considered the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Dr. Kavita Yadav, which addressed whether maternity benefits could continue even when the benefit period extended beyond the duration of a contractual appointment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court had held that, where the statutory requirements are satisfied, the expiry of a contract does not automatically extinguish an entitlement to maternity benefits already established under the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Khandelwal\u2019s case, the Court noted that the entire period of maternity leave sought fell within her initial contractual term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rajasthan High Court Precedents Also Cited<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The Court also referred to earlier Rajasthan High Court decisions, including Minakshi Chaudhary v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Rani Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan, which examined maternity benefits in the context of dignity, equal opportunity and constitutional protections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It further considered the decision in Hemlata Saraswata, which addressed the entitlement of women employed on a consolidated salary or contractual basis to maternity benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These decisions supported the principle that contractual status or the payment of a consolidated salary does not, by itself, justify denying maternity benefits. The applicable statutory provisions and the employee\u2019s eligibility must be examined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court Examines Maternity Benefit Act and Rajasthan Service Rules<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The High Court examined relevant provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, including Section 5, which provides maternity benefits to eligible women, Section 12, which provides certain protections against dismissal in specified circumstances, and Section 27, which gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other laws or agreements, subject to the statutory framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also referred to Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which provides for maternity leave of up to 180 days for eligible women government employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s conclusion in Khandelwal\u2019s case was based on its consideration of the applicable maternity benefit law, the relevant service rules and the principles established in earlier judicial decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It found that the authorities had rejected her request without properly examining her statutory entitlement and had relied solely on the restriction contained in her appointment order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

High Court Quashes Rejection Order, Directs Benefits Within Three Months<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Allowing Khandelwal\u2019s petition, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the December 16, 2022 order rejecting her maternity leave application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court directed the concerned authorities to grant her 180 days of maternity benefits with effect from December 26, 2022, and make the payment due for the relevant period in accordance with the applicable rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authorities have been directed to complete the process within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Appearances: Advocates Shambhu Singh Rathore, Ayushi Rathore and Shivani Rathore appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Praveen Kumar Chaudhary appeared for the State Government on behalf of Additional Advocate General Sajjan Singh Rathore.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a woman employee cannot be denied maternity benefits merely because she was appointed on a contractual basis. The Court set aside an order refusing maternity leave to Shivangi Khandelwal, a consultant associated with the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, and directed the authorities to grant her 180 … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9428,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,69],"tags":[3790,3788,339,3793,2210,659,43,2201,3794,3791,3792,3789],"class_list":["post-9919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories","category-rajasthan-high-court","tag-180-days-maternity-leave","tag-contractual-women-employees","tag-jodhpur-bench","tag-maternity-benefits","tag-maternity-leave","tag-rajasthan-hc","tag-rajasthan-high-court","tag-rajasthan-service-rules","tag-rajasthan-state-pollution-control-board","tag-rule-103-rajasthan-service-rules","tag-rule-one-hundred-three","tag-shivangi-khandelwal"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9919","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9919"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9919\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9920,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9919\/revisions\/9920"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9428"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}