‘Contractual employees also entitled to paid maternity leave’

‘Contractual employees also entitled to paid maternity leave’

Mohamed Imranullah S.

CHENNAI  23.10.2024 

In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court has ruled that contract employees, too, are entitled to maternity benefits, and that the provisions of the Maternity Act of 1961 would prevail over contractual conditions if the latter deny or offer less favourable benefits.

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held so while allowing a writ petition, pending in the High Court since 2018, against the denial of 270 days of paid maternity leave to nurses appointed under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM).

The MRB (Medical Services Recruitment Board) Nurses Empowerment Association had filed the writ petition highlighting the denial of maternity benefits to nurses appointed under the NHRM, a scheme floated and funded by the Centre for enhanced healthcare in rural areas.

The petitioner’s counsel, M. Padmavathy, told the court that over 11,000 nurses had been appointed in Tamil Nadu under the NRHM on a consolidated monthly pay of ₹7,000, which was subsequently revised to ₹11,000 on the basis of court orders.

Though the Maternity Act contemplates grant of 270 days of paid maternity leave to employees who have put in more than two years of service, the State government had been denying such a benefit to NRHM nurses on the ground that they were contractual employees, she complained.

After recording her submissions, the Chief Justice said the Supreme Court had, in Dr. Kavita Yadav versus Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2024), held that an employee who fulfils the entitlement criteria would be eligible for maternity benefits even if they exceed the duration of her contract.

In that case, the top court had taken into account that the 1961 Act was enacted to secure women’s right to pregnancy and maternity leave, and to afford them as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker, if they so desire.

“Therefore, by virtue of Section 27, the provisions of the 1961 Act will prevail over contractual conditions denying or offering less favourable maternity benefits. Consequently, the reliance by the respondents on condition 6 of the appointment and posting order to deny maternity benefits is untenable,” the Chief Justice wrote.