The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the State authorities to consider and decide on the claim of unpaid maternity leave salary filed by a contractual staff nurse, observing that denial of such salary solely on the basis of her temporary employment status is unjustified. The Court instructed the authorities to pass appropriate orders within three months from the receipt of the order.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Sangeeta Dhruve, employed as a Staff Nurse at the District Hospital, Kabirdham, had applied for maternity leave from 05.05.2024 to 31.10.2024, which was duly sanctioned. She gave birth on 09.05.2024 and resumed duties on 05.11.2024. Despite repeated representations, her salary for the maternity leave period remained unpaid. She approached the Court, citing financial hardship due to non-payment, especially affecting the care of her newborn child.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the petitioner relied on Rule 38 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Leave Rules, 2010, asserting that maternity leave up to 135 days is admissible without debit to leave account. The petitioner cited the judgment in WPS No. 5696 of 2025, where the High Court had recognized similar benefits for contractual employees.
The petitioner also relied on constitutional provisions (Articles 14 and 16) and Supreme Court precedents, including:
- Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare [(2024) 1 SCC 421], which affirmed maternity benefit entitlement even beyond the contract period.
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) [(2000) 3 SCC 224], recognizing maternity benefits for daily wage and casual workers.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State contended that the petitioner, being a contractual employee, was not entitled to maternity salary benefits.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad referred to:
- Rule 38 of the 2010 Leave Rules, which mandates salary during maternity leave.
- Supreme Court rulings affirming that maternity benefits are a part of the right to life under Article 21.
- The Kavita Yadav decision, emphasizing that maternity benefits can survive beyond the term of contractual employment and that enforcement of contractual limits to deny such benefits would contravene Section 12(2)(a) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
The Court emphasized:
“The right of a new mother and newly born child cannot be curtailed on the whims and capricious of the officer. The dignity of women at carse and the right to life of a newly born child is an important aspect, which cannot be deviated.”
Decision
The Court directed the respondent authorities to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner’s application in accordance with Rule 38 of the 2010 Rules and applicable guidelines. The decision must be taken within three months of receiving the Court’s order.
The Court clarified that it did not adjudicate the petitioner’s employment status (regular or contingent), and such reference in the order is limited to the purpose of this case.
Status: Writ Petition Allowed in Part (Relief Granted: Direction to Consider and Decide Maternity Salary Claim)
Case Title: Sangeeta Dhruve v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Case No. WPS No. 1704 of 2025
Bench: Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Shrikant Kaushik
Respondents’ Counsel: Mr. Prafull Bharat (Advocate General), Mr. Vivek Sharma (AAG), and Mrs. Shailja Shukla (Dy. Government Advocate)
