Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Asha Parmeshwaran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511
1 WP-6300-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 14th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6300 of 2015
SMT. ASHA PARMESHWARAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajiv Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) Command and direct the respondents to release the maternity and other monetary benefits to petitioner forthwith along with 18% rate of interest thereon w.e.f. the date/s the respective amounts became due till realization;
(ii) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be passed;
(iii) Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded."Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511 2 WP-6300-2015
2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Block Technology Manger, ATMA Project, Farmers Welfare and Agriculture Development, Block and District Vidisha by respondent No.3 vide order dated 20.05.2013 and during the period of employment approx six months, she being at advance stage of her pregnancy applied for grant of maternity leave from 18.11.2013 to 15.05.2014 on 06.11.2013, which was duly forwarded by the respondent No.4/Project Director to respondent No.3 vide letter dated 07.11.2013 for obtaining guidance with regard to grant of maternity leave.
3. The petitioner with prior intimation to respondent No.4 and in anticipation of grant of maternity leave for the aforesaid period, went on leave. After going on maternity leave, she was under impression that all the formalities for grant of maternity leave were processed by Respondents No. 2 to 4 and the same had been given to her, but after resuming her duties on 16.05.2014, she know that her leave was not extended, therefore again requested Respondent No.4 to sanction her maternity leave, but no heed was paid thereon.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Collector, Vidisha in Jansunvai, in which a notice was issued by the Collector to Respondent No.4, which was duly replied by him vide letter dated 21.08.2014. On the basis of the petitioner's letter/application dated 16.05.2014, Respondent No.4 further sought instructions from Respondent No.3 by issuing letter dated 29.08.2014, who in turn Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511 3 WP-6300-2015 forwarded it to respondent No.2 for appropriate guidance in the aforesaid regard. The respondent No.2 then forwarded a letter dated 03.11.2014 to the Principal Secretary, Farmer's Welfare & Agriculture Development for appropriate directions, but the issue of the petitioner for approval of maternity leave could not be resolved despite submission of representation dated 16.12.2014 by the petitioner alongwith the copy of Circular dated 03.11.2014 wherein it has been specifically laid down that the maternity leave period of the female contractual employees shall be extended to a period of 180 days in accordance with the Civil Services Leave Rules, 1977. Being aggrieved by the action of respondents, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that a just social order can be achieved only when inequalities are obliterated and everyone is provided what is legally due and the woman who constitutes almost half of the segment of our society have to be honoured and treated with dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood. Whatever be the nature of their duties, their avocation and the place where they work, they must be provided all the facilities to which they are entitled. To become a mother is the most natural phenomena in the life of a woman and whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realise the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in performing her duties at the work place while rearing up Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511 4 WP-6300-2015 the child after birth.
6. It was further argued that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 aims to provide all these facilities to a working woman in a dignified manner so that she may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, peacefully, undeterred by the fear of being victimised for forced absence during the pre or post-natal period.
7. While placing reliance on the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Anr. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 224, it was argued that a similar claim by female muster roll worker like petitioner who was employed on daily wage was granted benefit of maternity leave. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/State has opposed the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner and had prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
9. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents with due care.
10. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) while dealing with a similar claim by female muster roll worker who was employed on daily wage, she was granted benefit of maternity leave.
11. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Priyanka Gurjarkar Shrivastava Vs. Registrar General & Another (W.P. No. 17004/2015) Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511 5 WP-6300-2015 vide order dated 02.03.2017 had taken the same view by observing as under:
"The observations made by Justice Gajendra Gadkar based on socio-economic equality and the concept of adopting a realistic and pragmatic approach is carried forward by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 33 of the judgment in the case of Female Workers (Muster Roll) (Supra) the following observations are made :
"33. A just social order can be achieved only when inequalities are obliterated and everyone is provided what is legally due. Women who constitute almost half of the segment of our society have to be honoured and treated with dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood. Whatever be the nature of their duties, their avocation and the place where they work; they must be provided all the facilities to which they are entitled. To become a mother is the most natural phenomena in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realise the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in performing her duties at the work Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511
6 WP-6300-2015 place while carrying a baby in the womb or while rearing up the child after birth. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 aims to provide all these facilities to a working woman in a dignified manner so that she may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, peaceably, undeterred by the fear of being victimised for forced absence during the pre or post-natal period.
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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511 7 WP-6300-2015 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 expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment, we have no hesitation in holding that in the case of a woman Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511 8 WP-6300-2015 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.
13. Finally, if we analyse the judgment further we find that in paragraph 37, the universal declaration of Human Rights as adopted by United Nations on 10.12.1948 is taken note of and the "Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women" which was adopted by the United Nations on 18.12.1979 is taken note of and Article 11 of the aforesaid Convention has been reproduced.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511 9 WP-6300-2015 Article 11 of the Convention for the sake of convenience reads as under :
"Article 11
1. States/Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in particular;
(a) The right to work as an inalienable right of all human beings;
(b) The right to the same employment opportunities, including the application of the same criteria for selection in matters of employment;
(c) The right to free choice of profession and employment, the right to promotion, job security and all benefits and conditions of service and the right to receive vocational training and retraining, including apprenticeships, advanced vocational training and recurrent training;
(d) The right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work;
(e) The right to social security, particularly in Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511
10 WP-6300-2015 cases of retirement, unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age and other incapacity to work, as well as the right to paid leave.
(f) The right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of reproduction."
14. If we go through the aforesaid provision, we find that in the matter of imposition of sanction there is a total prohibition in the matter of discrimination or denial of benefit on grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave to a woman employee. On the contrary, the United Nation Convention mandate that there should be introduced a maternity leave with pay or with compatible social benefit without loss of former employment to every woman working in the World. It is after taking note of all these factors that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the writ petition in the case of Female Muster Roll Employees of the Delhi Municipal Corporation and if we apply the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, as we have held herein above, we have no hesitation in holding that in the case of the present petitioner and other female employees working in the establishment of the respondents, be in Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511 11 WP-6300-2015 whatever capacity they are, as far conferral of maternity benefits are concerned, they are entitled to all the benefit that is given to a regular employee in the establishment of the State Government for the purpose of maternity leave and other connected benefits.
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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511 12 WP-6300-2015 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511 13 WP-6300-2015 High Court has allowed a writ petition on identical terms in the case of 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.
17. Accordingly, we allow this petition, quash the impugned order dated 21.08.2015 and direct the respondents to grant to the petitioner the maternity leave as claimed for and as applicable to the regular employees working in the establishment of District & Sessions Court or the High Court."
12. It is Therefore a settled position of law that casual as well as temporary employees are also entitled to avail the maternity leave. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petitioner was appointed on contractual basis is also entitled for maternity leave.
13. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14511 14 WP-6300-2015 the respondents are directed to sanction the maternity leave to the petitioner for the period from 18.11.2013 to 15.05.2014. As a consequence thereof, the monetary benefits for the aforesaid period be also given to her.
14. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:11:57 AM