Recently, in a significant welfare-centric intervention concerning maternity rights and State accountability, the Madhya Pradesh High Court stepped in to examine whether a government establishment can deny paid maternity benefits to a woman employee by invoking the 80-day work requirement under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The case brought into focus a deeper constitutional tension: can a technical eligibility condition override the State’s obligation to secure social justice, dignity, and health protections for women? The Court’s scrutiny signalled that the answer would have far-reaching implications for how welfare laws are applied to women engaged in non-permanent or contractual roles.
The controversy began when a guest faculty member, engaged on a contractual basis in a government college, was initially granted maternity leave with honorarium, only for the benefit to be withdrawn through a subsequent order relying on Section 5(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act and a State circular. The Petitioner challenged this reversal, arguing that the denial of wages during maternity leave defeated the very object of the statute, which is to safeguard the health and dignity of women during pregnancy. She further contended that the Act applies to all establishments, including government institutions, and that the benefit cannot be diluted merely because of the nature of her engagement. On the other hand, the State defended its action by asserting that the petitioner had not fulfilled the statutory requirement of having worked for at least 80 days in the preceding twelve months, and therefore, the earlier grant of paid leave was rightly modified in accordance with law and policy.
Justice Vishal Dhagat approached the issue through a constitutional lens, emphasising that welfare legislation must be interpreted in harmony with the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Court made a crucial distinction, holding that while the 80-day eligibility condition under Section 5(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act may apply to private establishments, it cannot be rigidly enforced by the State to deny benefits. Stressing the State’s heightened responsibility, the Court observed, “State is required to take welfare measures for its citizens… Spirit of the Constitution of India and directives principle cannot be overlooked by Constitutional Court.”
The Bench further elaborated that India’s constitutional framework mandates the State to promote social, economic, and health-related welfare, particularly for women, under Articles 38, 39, and 39A of the Constitution. It noted that maternity benefits are not a mere statutory concession but a reflection of constitutional values aimed at protecting motherhood and ensuring dignity. By invoking these principles, the Court rejected a narrow, technical reading of the law and held that such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose of the legislation.
Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was held entitled to paid maternity leave for twenty-six weeks, with wages for the prescribed period, while clarifying that the remaining leave would be treated without pay.
Case Title: Dr. Priti Saket Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 9877 of 2026
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vishal Dhagat
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Hitendra Kumar Golhani, Adv. Kajal Vishwakarma
Advocate for the Respondent: Government Adv. Kamal Singh Baghel
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
