In a significant ruling for working women, the Bombay High Court has held that maternity benefits cannot be denied merely because a woman is employed on a contractual basis.
A division bench of Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Advait M. Sethna allowed a writ petition filed by Dr. Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis, an anesthesiologist who was serving as an Assistant Professor at Seth G.S. Medical College and KEM Hospital.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Partly Allows Discharge Plea in 498A Case, Drops Attempt to Homicide Charge
The Court quashed a communication issued by the hospital refusing her maternity leave benefits and directed the authorities to release her dues within six weeks.
Background of the Case
Dr. Karkhanis was appointed on a contractual basis at Seth G.S. Medical College and KEM Hospital, which functions under the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Her contract had been periodically renewed since 2022.
In August 2024, she applied for maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, seeking six months’ leave as provided under law.
However, in October 2024, the hospital rejected her request. The reason given was simple: contractual employees were not entitled to maternity benefits under municipal service rules.
Aggrieved, she approached the High Court challenging the rejection.
What the Petitioner Argued
Senior counsel for the doctor told the Court that the law makes no distinction between permanent and contractual employees when it comes to maternity benefits.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Reinstates KSRTC Guard, Says No Termination Without Proper Inquiry and Fair
He pointed out that she had completed more than 80 days of service before her expected delivery date - a key requirement under Section 5 of the Act.
“The statutory right cannot be taken away by a contract,” the counsel argued, relying on Section 27 of the Act, which overrides any inconsistent agreement.
It was also submitted that she had repeatedly informed the hospital about her pregnancy and had complied with all notice requirements under the law.
Stand of the Corporation
The Municipal Corporation argued that her appointment was purely contractual and temporary. According to them, she was not eligible for benefits available to regular employees.
They also claimed that at the time of signing the contract extension in August 2024, she did not disclose her pregnancy.
However, during earlier hearings, the Corporation had indicated that it was willing “in principle” to process her maternity benefits. Later, it changed its stand - something the Court did not appreciate.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Orders Cancellation of OBC Certificate of Gram Panchayat Pradhan
Court’s Observations
The bench examined the object of the Maternity Benefit Act. The judges noted that the law is meant to protect the dignity of motherhood and ensure financial security for women during childbirth.
“The Act does not carve out any exception for contractual employees,” the bench observed.
Referring to Section 27, the Court made it clear that no service agreement can override statutory maternity rights.
The judges also rejected the allegation that the doctor had suppressed her pregnancy. The record showed that she had written to the authorities in August and October 2024, well before delivery.
Importantly, the Court stressed that maternity benefits are linked to the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench remarked that denying such benefits to an eligible woman employee would defeat the very purpose of the legislation.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Enhances Accident Compensation to ₹6 Lakh for Court Employee
The Decision
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the hospital’s communication dated 21 October 2024.
The judges directed the Municipal Corporation and the hospital to release the maternity benefits payable under the Maternity Benefit Act within six weeks from the date of the order being uploaded.
The Court made the rule absolute and disposed of the interim application. No costs were imposed.
The matter ends with a clear declaration: maternity benefits under the law apply to eligible women employees - whether permanent or contractual.
Case Title: Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 483 of 2025
Decision Date: 27 February 2026
