Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Archna Samadhiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1744
1 WP. No. 16604 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 14th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 16604 of 2017
SMT. ARCHNA SAMADHIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Surya Pratap Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):
"(a) That, it is most humbly prayed that the impugned order annexure
- P/1 may kindly be quashed/set aside and also the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition thereby humble petitioner may kindly be granted "Paid Maternity Leaves" of complete 180 days (i.e.90 days leaves form 11.07.17 to 06.10.2017 as well) which has already been availed due to the reason of Maternity Leaves.
And also the respondents may kindly be commanded to disburse & make the payment for such Leave Period as soon as possible, in the interest of justice.
(b) That, the humble petitioner be also declared to be entitled for 730 days "Child Care Leaves" as well in the near future as required, in accordance with the Prescribed Child Care Leave Rules.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:28:47 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1744 2 WP. No. 16604 of 2017
(c) That, the Cost of instant petition be awarded and also any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of instant case, be issued in favor of the petitioner, in the interest of justice."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by impugned order dated 28.9.2017, the respondent had declined to consider the case of petitioner for maternity leave for claimed period holding that she being a contractual employee is not eligible for paid leaves of 180 days as maternity leaves. Though the earlier 90 days' leaves already granted to petitioner from 11.7.2017 to 06.10.2017 had not been considered as paid leaves. It is further submitted that the benefit of 180 days was not extended to petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a contractual employee and benefit of 180 days is extended to regular employee only. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon order dated 2.3.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Gujarkar Shrivastava v. Registrar General and another (in W.P. No.17004/2015) and as per order dated 2.3.2017 passed in W.P. No.17004/2015, petitioner is also entitled to 180 days' maternity leave.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent/State opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner and supported the impugned order. It is further submitted that as per contract between petitioner and respondent dated 29.11.2012, petitioner had agreed that she would receive benefit of 90 days as a maternity leave and she would be bound by the said condition mentioned in the agreement; and therefore, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:28:47 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1744 3 WP. No. 16604 of 2017
5. The controversy, involved in the present case, has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Mrs. Priyanka Gujarkar Shrivastava (supra), the relevant para of which are quoted below for ready reference and convenience:-
15. We find that vide notification (Annexure P/10) dated 29.02.1996, the State Government has made all the leave rules applicable to a regular employee of the State Government, applicable to casual employees and temporary employees working in the State of Madhya Pradesh, it that be so, we are of the considered view that the petitioner would be entitled to maternity leave at par with a regular employee working in the establishment of the respondents or in any other establishment of the State Government and in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on account of the fact that she was only a contract employee an error has been committed by the respondents which has to be remedied by us in this petition.
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) Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:28:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1744 4 WP. No. 16604 of 2017 (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 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, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:28:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1744 5 WP. No. 16604 of 2017 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.
6. Considering the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench and as per notification dated 29.2.1996, petitioner is entitled to maternity leave as claimed by her.
7. Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of in the following manner:
(i) Impugned order dated 28.9.2017 is set aside;
(ii) Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of maternity leave to petitioner as claimed by her and as applicable to the regular employees working in the respondent department.
8. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge Ahmad Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 1/15/2026 10:28:47 AM