Kerala High Court
Arya Rajan Karat vs Malabar Cancer Centre on 8 September, 2025
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
WP(C) NO. 18711 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:66535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18711 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ARYA RAJAN KARAT
AGED 30 YEARS
AGRAHAM HOUSE, PAZHASSI, URUVACHAL P.0.,
MATTANUR, KANNUR, PIN - 670 702
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL
SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN (SR.)
SRI.S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN
SMT.ANJANA S. RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 MALABAR CANCER CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH
SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 035
2 MALABAR CANCER CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
MOOZHIKKARA (P.O), THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 670 103
BY ADVS.
SMT.HELEN P.A., MALABAR CANCER CENTRE
SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18711 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:66535
T.R.RAVI.J
------------------------------------
WP(C) No.18711 of 2025
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner while working as a Pharmacist on contract
basis under the 1st respondent, requested for maternity leave as
per Ext.P4 from 01.10.2024. The appointment was on contract
basis for 179 days duration. She was engaged for the first time on
03.06.2021 which continued for a period of three years by
intermittent extensions. After the initial period of three years, the
contract was again renewed for a period of six months which was to
end by 31.12.2024. It is during the said period of engagement that
Ext.P4 request was made. When there was no response, the
petitioner submitted Ext.P5 request on 30.09.2024 requesting for
leave from 22.10.2024 onwards. She thereafter went on leave and
delivered on 03.11.2024. Her request for maternity benefits under
the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 was not granted and leave was
granted only till the end of October, 2024. The reason for rejection
of the request is that the petitioner's contract period was to end in
December, 2024 and granting the maternity leave would overshoot
the contractual period. It is also stated that the appointments are
WP(C) NO. 18711 OF 2025
2025:KER:66535
made for projects and that the grant of maternity leave will result
in extending the tenure of the petitioner that too when no such
engagement was required for the 1st respondent.
2. The issue is no longer res integra. In Dr.Kavitha Yadav
vs. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Department and Others [(2024) 1 SCC 421], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the issue of grant of maternity benefits
where the period will overshoot the contractual period of
appointment. After considering the entire statutory provisions and
judgments on the issue, the Court concluded in paragraph No.15 as
follows;
"15. In our opinion, a combined reading of these provisions in the
factual context of this case would lead to the conclusion that once
the appellant fulfilled the entitlement criteria specified in Section
5(2) of the Act, she would be eligible for full maternity benefits
even if such benefits exceed the duration of her contract. Any
attempt to enforce the contract duration term within such period by
the employer would constitute "discharge" and attract the embargo
specified in Section 12 (2)(a) of the 1961 Act. The law creates a
fiction in such a case by treating her to be in employment for the
sole purpose of availing maternity benefits under the 1961 Act."
3. Going by the judgment, a fiction is created for the
purpose of grant of maternity benefits by extending the period of
employment for the sole purpose of availing maternity benefits. In
view of the categoric pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the petitioner is entitled to relief in the writ petition. The writ
WP(C) NO. 18711 OF 2025
2025:KER:66535
petition is allowed. The 1st respondent is directed to grant the
maternity benefits to the petitioner for the period of 182 days from
22.10.2024 treating the period as employment for the purpose of
grant of maternity benefits. In view of the above direction, it is not
necessary to go into the second prayer seeking declaration that the
termination of the petitioner is in violation of Section 12 of the
Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. The Senior Counsel submitted that
the petitioner does not wish to press the second relief. Necessary
benefits shall be extended within a period of three weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
sn
WP(C) NO. 18711 OF 2025
2025:KER:66535
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18711/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INITIAL APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 24/05/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT AND SALARY
CERTIFICATE DATED 22/07/2024 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT EXTENSION ORDER
DATED 03/06/2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE REQUEST LETTER DATED
11/07/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE REQUEST DATED
30/09/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 22/10/2024 SENT
BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL AND LETTER DATED
19/12/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED
15/03/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTITUTION POLICY ON
CONTRACT APPOINTMENTS DATED 03/052021 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT
