The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a woman working as a Guest Lecturer cannot be denied maternity-related salary benefits merely because she is not a regular employee. The court directed the State authorities to consider and decide the lecturer’s representation seeking payment for the maternity leave period within three months.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed that the protections available under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 are not restricted only to permanent employees and extend to women engaged in other forms of employment as well.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Savita Paikra, had been working as a Guest Lecturer in a government college since August 2023. During her pregnancy, she applied for maternity leave on July 31, 2025, under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Her leave request was approved, and she resumed duty on January 28, 2026.
After returning to work, she submitted a representation seeking monetary benefits and salary for the period during which she remained on maternity leave. According to her petition, the authorities did not take any decision on her request, prompting her to approach the High Court.
The State opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner was not a regular employee and therefore was not entitled to claim monetary benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act.
Court’s Observations
While examining the dispute, Justice Guru emphasized the purpose of maternity protections under the law.
The court observed that a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy cannot be expected to perform strenuous work, as doing so could affect both her health and that of the unborn child.
Referring to the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, the court noted that nothing in the legislation limits maternity benefits exclusively to regular employees.
“The Act was enacted to secure women's right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to afford women with as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker,” the court observed.
The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department (2024), where maternity benefits were recognized even in cases involving contractual employment. The Supreme Court had held that maternity benefits can continue beyond the tenure of employment once statutory conditions are satisfied.
Reliance on Earlier Supreme Court Rulings
The court further referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), where maternity benefits were extended to women engaged on daily wage and casual basis.
According to the High Court, the principle emerging from these decisions is that maternity protections are intended to safeguard women workers and should not be denied solely because of the nature of their appointment.
Justice Guru noted that there was no dispute that the petitioner was performing duties similar to those performed by regular lecturers. The court recorded that she carried the same responsibilities despite being designated as a Guest Lecturer.
Decision
Allowing the petition to that extent, the High Court held that salary for the maternity leave period could not be denied merely because the petitioner was serving as a Guest Lecturer.
“The salary for the period when the petitioner had gone to maternity leave cannot be denied on the ground that she was serving as a Guest Lecturer,” the court observed.
The court directed the concerned authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass an appropriate order regarding her claim for unpaid salary during the maternity leave period.
The exercise has been ordered to be completed, preferably within three months from the receipt of the court’s order.
Case Details
Case Title: Savita Paikra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case Number: WPS No. 4672 of 2026
Judge: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Decision Date: June 23, 2026
