Bombay High Court

RUPALI RAJENDRA MAJKURIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPT. AND ORS.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

A contractual female employee who satisfies the eligibility criteria under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is entitled to full maternity benefits even if the benefit period extends beyond the term of her contract.

Summary

The petitioner, a contract Medical Officer at a Primary Health Centre in Kolhapur, applied for maternity leave citing an expected delivery date of 11 October 2026. She was told orally that contractual employees are ineligible for leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The respondents argued that the Act’s Section 5 limits benefits to 26 weeks, requires at most 8 weeks pre‑delivery, and mandates a minimum of 80 days of work in the preceding 12 months, which they said was unverified. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2024 1 SCC 421), which held that a woman on a temporary contract is entitled to full maternity benefits once she meets the eligibility criteria, even if the benefit period exceeds the contract term. Applying that precedent, the Court allowed the petition, directing the District Health Officer to grant maternity benefits as computed under Section 5(3) of the Act, noting the decision is not binding precedent. The petition was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 applies to a woman employed on a contract basis.
Whether a contractual employee is eligible for maternity benefits when the benefit period exceeds the term of her contract.
Whether the petitioner has satisfied the 80‑day work requirement under Section 5(2) of the Act.
What is the permissible duration of maternity benefit under Section 5(3) of the Act.

Legislation cited

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 — s. 5, 5(2), 5(3)

Subjects

maternity leave
contract employee
Maternity Benefit Act 1961
eligibility criteria
80 days work requirement
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:9787-DB

906-WP-4983-2026(C).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4983 OF 2026

Rupali Rajendra Majkuri ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Krishna P. Rodge, (Through V.C.) for the Petitioner.
Mr. Abhijit M. Adagule, for Respondent No.2 – ZP.
Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026.
P. C. :

1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to

Respondent No.2, District Health Officer, to grant medical leave to the

Petitioner as per her request letter dated 9th June, 2026.

2. The Petitioner is working as a Medical Officer on contract basis at

the Primary Health Center, District Kolhapur, and was appointed as

Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Mangaon, on contract basis

vide appointment order dated 6th October, 2025, and is discharging her

duties at the same place.

3. The Petitioner pleads that her expected date of delivery is 11 th

October, 2026, and required maternity leave, pursuant to which an

Jamadar - SL 1 of 4
906-WP-4983-2026(C).doc

application was made by her on 9th June, 2026, to Respondent No.3,

Taluka Health Officer. However, she was orally informed that she is not

eligible for maternity leave as she is a contractual employee.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that

the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, (“the Act of 1961”) would apply to the

Petitioner even if she is appointed on contract basis.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad would submit

that as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1961, the maximum

period for which any woman is entitled to maternity benefit is 26 weeks,

of which not more than 8 weeks to precede the date of her expected

delivery. He submits that in the present case, the Petitioner states that

the expected date of delivery is 11 th October, 2026, whereas the

Petitioner has already gone on leave on 9 th June, 2026. He would further

submit that the contract expires on 5 th September, 2026, and, in his

usual fairness, would tender the decision in the case of Dr. Kavita Yadav

v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and

Others1, which would benefit the Petitioner. He would, however, submit

that the provisions require that the woman should have worked in the

establishment for a period of not less than 80 days, and he still has to

verify whether she has completed the period of 80 days.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that

1 (2024) 1 SCC 421

Jamadar - SL 2 of 4
906-WP-4983-2026(C).doc

though the expected date of delivery was stated in the Petition to be

11th October, 2026, the Petitioner has already delivered and necessary

documents to that effect will be produced before Respondent No.2.

7. We have considered the decision in the case of Dr. Kavita Yadav

v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and

Others (supra). In that case, the Petitioner was appointed on temporary

contract basis for a period of one year, extendable on yearly basis up to

maximum of three years, and sought the maternity benefit. The Hon'ble

Apex Court considered the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1961,

and formulated the question in paragraph 6 as to whether the maternity

benefits as contemplated in the Act of 1961, would apply to a lady

employee appointed on contract if the period for which she claims such

benefits overshoots the contractual period. It held that once the

applicant fulfilled the entitlement criteria specified in Section 5(2) of

the Act of 1961, she would be eligible for full maternity benefits, even if

such benefits exceed the duration of her contract.

8. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court affirms two propositions

that even if the woman was employed on temporary basis, she would be

entitled to the maternity benefits under the Act of 1961, and secondly,

the entitlement is not restricted by reason of the fact that such benefits

would exceed the duration of the contract. The decision squarely

applies to the facts of the present case.

Jamadar - SL 3 of 4
906-WP-4983-2026(C).doc

9. The provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act of 1961, provide that the

maximum period for which any woman would be entitled to maternity

benefit shall be 26 weeks, of which not more than 8 weeks shall precede

the date of her expected delivery.

10. The Petitioner will produce the necessary documents before

Respondent No.2 as regards her date of delivery, and the benefits to be

accordingly computed as per Section 5(3) of the Act of 1961.

11. Although it is not verified whether the Petitioner has completed

80 days in the 12 months immediately preceding the date of her

expected delivery, in the facts of the present case, we are inclined to

allow the Petitioner the benefits of the Act of 1961, which is not to be

treated as precedent.

12. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

Jamadar - SL 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…