The Kerala High Court has ruled that women employees working on a contractual basis cannot be denied leave for hysterectomy merely because the relevant service rule has not been expressly extended to contractual appointments. Holding that such a distinction lacks a reasonable basis, the Court set aside a government order rejecting the petitioners' applications and directed the State to reconsider their leave claims.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by Nisha Jose and Moly P.C., both serving as Special Educators (Secondary) under Samagra Shiksha Kerala on contract. They had undergone hysterectomy surgeries after medical advice and applied for medical leave supported by hospital discharge summaries and medical certificates. Their applications were forwarded to the Government but remained undecided for a considerable period.
During the proceedings, the petitioners relied on a 2021 Government Order extending maternity leave benefits under Rules 100 and 101 of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) to women appointed on contract. However, the Government later rejected their request for hysterectomy leave under Rule 101A, stating that the benefit had not been specifically extended to contractual employees.
Court's Observations
Justice Harisankar V. Menon examined whether contractual women employees could be granted maternity-related benefits while being denied hysterectomy leave under Rule 101A.
The Court referred to the earlier decision in Rakhi P.V. v. State of Kerala, where it had been held that maternity benefits are welfare measures and should not be denied solely because an employee is engaged on a contractual basis. The judgment had emphasized that contractual status should not result in discrimination against women employees.
The Court observed:
“When the benefits under Rules 100 and 101 are extended to female officers appointed on contract basis, there is no reason for not extending the very same benefits as regards the claim under Rule 101A.”
The judge further noted that Rule 101 covers leave in cases such as miscarriage, while Rule 101A specifically deals with hysterectomy. Since the Government had already extended Rule 101 benefits to contractual employees, refusing the corresponding benefit under Rule 101A lacked justification.
Court's Decision
Allowing both writ petitions, the High Court held that the Government's order rejecting the petitioners' claims could not be sustained in law. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the State Government to process the petitioners' leave applications in accordance with the legal principles laid down in the judgment.
The exercise has been ordered to be completed within 16 weeks.
Case Details
Case Title: Nisha Jose v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Connected with Moly P.C. v. State of Kerala & Ors.)
Case Number: W.P.(C) Nos. 22702 of 2022 & 5057 of 2023
Judge: Justice Harisankar V. Menon
Decision Date: 15 July 2026
 chief. Eknath Shinde – Shiv Sena leader-300x169.webp)
