Maternity Leave During Bond Service Cannot Be Penalised

Case Details: Dr Meenakshi Muthiah vs. State of Maharashtra - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 160 (HC-Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Anil S. Kilor & Raj D. Wakode, JJ.
A.M. Sudame, Adv. for the Petitioner.
N.S. Rao, A.G.P. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, an MDS degree holder, was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the respondent medical college under the Government Social Responsibility Service (bond service) for a bond period of 365 days.

The petitioner went on maternity leave during the bond period. The respondent imposed a penalty on the petitioner for not completing the bond period by not treating maternity leave as a duty period.

It was noted that the maternity leave is not a break in service and the bond cannot be used to penalise a woman for exercising her right to motherhood.

Further, it was noted that no bond can override the right to maternity leave, which is a facet of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

High Court Held

The High Court observed that any contract, agreement or bond that penalises a woman for taking maternity leave or tries to deny her this right to that extent is found inconsistent according to Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

Further, the High Court observed that the petitioner could not be denied such a right only because the bond was executed by her under the Social Responsibility Service Scheme and did not hold permanent status, as she was also entitled to the same protective umbrella as available to regular employees when it comes to maternity-related entitlement.

The High Court held that the period during which the petitioner was on maternity leave was to be considered as a duty period and the petitioner was entitled to salary for the said period.

Further, the High Court held that, by excluding the maternity leave period, the petitioner had shown readiness and willingness to complete her bond period as Assistant Professor; the same was to be permitted if there was no legal impediment.