Maternity leave is not a break in service, cannot attract bond penalty: Bombay HC

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has ruled that the period of maternity leave availed by a woman cannot be treated as a break in her service, and that the conditions of a compulsory service bond cannot be used to penalise her for exercising her right to motherhood.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode clarified that such bonds, which are often executed by medical professionals who receive subsidised education, are subordinate to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a dental professional who was appointed as an Assistant Professor under the Social Responsibility Service Scheme. The scheme requires candidates who benefit from subsidised medical education to render compulsory service in government institutions for a specified period. The petitioner was appointed for a one-year bond period at a government dental college. During her tenure, she became pregnant and was granted maternity leave, during which she delivered child.

Upon attempting to resume duties after the leave, the authorities informed her that the maternity leave period would not be counted towards completion of her bond service. She was directed to serve an additional period corresponding to the duration of the leave. A penalty was subsequently imposed on her for the alleged non-completion of the bond tenure.

The petitioner challenged the imposition of the penalty and the refusal to count the leave period as part of her service. The Bench observed that the purpose of maternity leave is to enable a woman to give birth and recover without the fear of adverse consequences to her employment.

The Court held that such leave cannot be viewed as an interruption in service. It stated that any contractual obligation under a bond cannot be enforced in a manner that penalises a woman for exercising her reproductive rights, which are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Bench further noted that the protections afforded by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, are applicable regardless of the employee’s permanent or temporary status. Referring to Section 27 of the Act, which renders contracts inconsistent with the Act void, the Court stated that any agreement that denies or penalises a woman for availing maternity leave is inconsistent with the law to that extent.

The Court observed that even though the petitioner was serving under a bond under the Social Responsibility Service Scheme, she is entitled to the same protective umbrella available to regular employees regarding maternity entitlements. The petition was allowed, and the demand for the penalty was quashed.