Recently, the Madras High Court held that the period of maternity leave must be treated as part of the mandatory bond service, reiterating that maternity leave is not a mere concession but a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court was dealing with a writ appeal filed by a medical officer against the refusal of authorities to return her original certificates on the ground that she had not completed her bond service. In a significant observation, the Bench emphasized that “an employee cannot be penalised for exercising a statutory and constitutional right.”
Brief facts:
The appellant, a qualified medical graduate, had completed her MBBS in 2014 and was admitted to a postgraduate MS course at a government medical college in Tamil Nadu for the academic session 2016–2019. As per the admission guidelines, she executed a bond of ₹40 lakhs, agreeing to serve the State Government for a minimum period of two years upon completion of her course. She was also required to deposit her original educational certificates as a condition of compliance.
Following her appointment as an Assistant Surgeon at the Government Hospital, Thittakudi, the appellant rendered uninterrupted service for 12 months before proceeding on maternity leave. However, upon seeking the return of her original certificates, the authorities declined her request, citing non-completion of the full two-year bond service. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the High Court through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. She then filed the present writ appeal.
Issue:
Whether the period of maternity leave can be construed as bond service?
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant contended that maternity leave is a right guaranteed both statutorily under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and constitutionally under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. She argued that exclusion of maternity leave from the bond period effectively penalizes women for availing benefits legally available to them, and such exclusion violates the principles of dignity, equality, and autonomy. It was further argued that since the leave was sanctioned and covered by applicable service rules, the period should not be excluded from the mandatory service duration.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice K. Rajasekar made strong constitutional pronouncements reinforcing the legal sanctity of maternity leave.
Citing Section 5, Section 12, and Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the Court observed that maternity leave is a protected period of absence that cannot be construed as a break in service. The Court clarified that “maternity leave is not a concession; it is a facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Bench noted that the issue was no longer res integra, and any term of employment that attempts to dilute or circumvent maternity rights must yield to the overarching constitutional guarantees.
In its reasoned analysis, the Court remarked, “An employee cannot be penalised for exercising a statutory and constitutional right. Maternity leave is integrally linked to the health, dignity, and well-being of the mother and the child. To not count such leave towards the bond period is to strike at the very core of the constitutional vision.”
The Court also relied on significant judgments including Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, Devika Biswas v. Union of India, Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, and X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, to underline that the right to maternity benefits is interwoven with the right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity.
Importantly, the Bench addressed the nature of the appellant’s employment, holding that even if she was not a regular government employee, the constitutional and statutory protections must extend to her. The Court observed, “The appellant is entitled to the same humane treatment and protection as any regular government employee. Service classifications cannot dilute constitutional protections.”
The decision of the court:
Allowing the writ appeal, the High Court directed the authorities to release the appellant’s original certificates, holding that the maternity leave availed by her shall be deemed as part of the bond period. The Court’s decision affirms that maternity rights cannot be compromised by rigid administrative interpretations of service bonds.
Case title: Dr.E.Krithikaa V. The State of Tamil Nadu
Coram: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice K. Rajasekar
Case No.: W.A.(MD)No.860 of 2023 AND C.M.P.(MD)No.6922 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. U.Venkatesh
Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and 2: Adv. C.Venkatesh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader.
Advocate for the Respondent no. 3: Adv. A.S.Vaigunth, Standing counsel.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :