Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Garima Mathur vs State Of M.P. on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44110
1 WP-12750-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12750 of 2023
SMT. GARIMA MATHUR
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Ojha - Government Advocate for the respondent - State.
Shri Paritosh Gupta - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-1, whereby the respondent No.2 has denied the benefit of maternity leave to the petitioner on the ground that as per policy of the University the contractual teachers are not entitled for paid maternity leave.
2. By way of amendment, Clause 3.10 of the Circular of the State Government dated 27.01.2022 has been put to challenge, whereby the State Government has barred grant of paid maternity leaves to guest faculties and only granted unpaid maternity leaves to guest faculty.
3. The petitioner was appointed not as Guest Faculty, but as Contractual Assistant Professor in Computer Science Engineering Department in the respondent University vide order dated 23.06.2021 and she got maternity leave from 11.07.2022 to 11.01.2023. The said maternity Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/12/2025 3:19:43 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44110 2 WP-12750-2023 leave was though granted, but the petitioner was informed that she is not entitled to get paid maternity leave. The petitioner availed the unpaid leave and is now seeking payment of salary for the period of maternity leave, which was granted to the petitioner as unpaid leave.
4. The respondents have contested the case of petitioner in terms of Annexure R-1 dated 27.01.2022, which is the policy of the State Government for grant of invitation as guest faculties in Govt. Colleges and Universities in the State and as per Clause 3.10, it has been mentioned that the guest faculties would get only unpaid maternity leave and not paid maternity leave. The relevant Clause 3.10 is as under :-
"3.10 सूित के कारण अवकाश पर रहने वाली म हला अितिध या याता को ाचाय ारा अवैतिनक अवकाश वीकृ त कया जाएगा तथा सूित अवकाश के दौरान उस म हला अितिथ या याता के थान पर कोई अ य अितिथ या याता को आमं त नह ं कया जायेगा।
अवैतिनक अवकाश वीकृ ित के समय इस संबंध म सामा य शासन वभाग ारा जार सामा य िनदश का पालन कया जाना चा हए।
अवैतिनक सूित अवकाश का लाभ लेने के उपरांत म हला अितिथ या याता दवारा आमं ण क शेष अविध म अपना काय पूण कया जाएगा।"
5. The petitioner does not need to challenge the Clause 3.10 of Circular dated 27.01.2022, because it applies to guest faculties and the petitioner, as clearly evident from the appointment order Annexure P-2 was not a guest faculty, but was a contractual employee and even the order Annexure P-1, which is impugned in the present petition rejecting the application on the ground that contractual teachers are not entitled for paid maternity leave is not supported by any lawful policy of the State Government or of the University, because the only policy relied by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/12/2025 3:19:43 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44110 3 WP-12750-2023 respondent no. 2 in its reply is Circular dated 27.01.2022, which applies to guest faculty and not to contractual teachers.
6. As the petitioner is not a Guest Faculty, but is a Contractual Teacher, therefore, this Court does not enter into validity of Clause 3.10 of the said policy and it is left open to be decided in appropriate case.
7. So far as the grant of maternity benefits to contractual employees is concerned, the said issue is no longer res-integra and a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.17004 of 2015 (Mrs. Priyanka Gujarkar Shrivastav vs. Registrar General & another) has held as under:-
"12. If we take note of the aforesaid principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that the Supreme Court has expressed its concern in the matter of treatment given to women and goes to observe that women constitute half the segment of our society. They have to be honoured and treated with dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood. Whatever be the nature of their duties or avocation, in the place where they work, they must be provided with all facilities to which they are entitled to. If the anxiety expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is taken note of, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not approve the act of discriminating a woman based on the place where she works and the nature of avocation and the nature of duties performed by her. The Hon'ble Supreme Court says that all facilities available to a woman should be provided irrespective of the place where their work, the nature of duties performed by them which would also include the nature of appointment provided to them. Hon'ble Supreme Court goes on to say that this is more so necessary because she becomes a mother, which is the most natural phenomena of life of a woman and for the same and for giving birth to a child she needs all the facilities which are to be provided to her and therefore, the employer while doing so has to be considered and sympathetic towards her. The employer should be more realistic to the physical disabilities which a woman has to face when on family way and therefore taking note of all these aspects, the conclusion arrived at is that for a woman irrespective of the place where she is working, the benefit of Maternity Benefit Act should be conferred as the aim of this law is to provide all facilities to a working women in a dignified manner so that she can overcome the state of motherhood honorably, feasibly and without any clear victimization or without being a victim of forced absence from her place of work. If we analyse each and every word and the anxiety Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/12/2025 3:19:43 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44110 4 WP-12750-2023 expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment, we have no hesitation in holding that in the case of a woman irrespective of the place where she is working and irrespective of capacity of her appointment, the nature and tenure of her appointment and the duties performed by her, when it comes to granting her the benefit of facilities required to give birth to a child the employer is duty bound under the Constitution to provide her all the benefits and that is why it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the benefit of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 should be conferred to even muster role employees working in the Delhi Municipal Corporation and if the aforesaid principle is applied in the present case, we see no reason as to why the benefit of Maternity Benefit Act should not be given to a woman contractual employee even if she is working in the establishment of the District and Sessions Judge.
16. Identical issue of granting maternity leave to women employees appointed on contract basis or on adhoc or temporary basis have been considered by the Allahabad High Court, the Rajasthan High Court, the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Uttarakhand High Court and based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Female Workers (Muster Roll) (Supra), petitions have been allowed and directions issued to grant benefit to the employees. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Parul Mishra Vs. State of U.P. decided on 27th January, 2010 in the case of a Lecturer working as Government and Post Graduate College on contract basis, after applying the laid down in the Supreme Court Female Workers (Muster Roll) (Supra) held that the employees therein was entitled to avail maternity benefit as is applicable to regularly lecturer in the Government College and identical contention of the State Government counsel to say that contractual employees are not entitled for maternity benefit was rejected. It was held by the learned High Court that the maternity leave does not change with the nature of employment. It is concerned with human right of a women and the employer and the Courts are bound under the constitutional scheme guaranteeing right to life, a right to live with dignity and protect the health of both mother and child, and after taking note of identical principle, petitions have been allowed. Similarly, the Rajsthan High Court in various writ petitions has directed for granting benefit to contract and temporary employees who are also claiming identical benefit in the cases of Civil Writ No.1598/2017 - Meenakshi Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan & others decided on 14th February, 2017 following earlier an judgment of the Rajasthan High Court rendered by Division Bench in the case of Neetu Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & others (2008) Vol.-II RNW page 1404 (Raj). The Punjab & Haryana High Court has also granted similar benefit and allowed identical writ petition in the case of Anima Goel Vs. Haryana State Agricultural Development Corporation (2007) Vol.III LLJ page 64, Punjab & Haryana and the Uttarakhand High Court has allowed a writ petition on identical terms in the case of Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/12/2025 3:19:43 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:44110 5 WP-12750-2023 Smt. Nidhi Choudhary Vs. State of Uttarakhand Writ Petition No.1866/2016 decided on 27.09.2016. Copies of all these judgments available in the website of Indian Kanoon Organization have been produced before us for perusal and we find that in all these cases after applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court as detailed here-in-above, identical writ petitions have been allowed and contractual employees have been directed to be granted the benefit of maternity leave at par with regular employees and we see no reason to take different view."
8. In view of the aforesaid, curtains have been drawn on the issue involved in the present case. The Division Bench of this Court has taken note of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and another, (2000) 3 SCC 224 and allowed maternity leave to contractual employees working in District Court establishments in the State.
9. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for paid maternity leave being contrary to legislative mandate flowing from Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 cannot be allowed to be sustained. The impugned order Annexure P-1 in denying paid maternity leave to the petitioner deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to be paid salary for the period of maternity leave availed by the petitioner within 90 days of this order.
10. Petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE rj Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 9/12/2025 3:19:43 PM