Bombay high court rules maternity leave cannot be treated as break in service, quashes Rs 23.6 lakh penalty on woman doctor

NAGPUR: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court recently ruled that maternity leave cannot be treated as a break in service and compulsory medical service bonds cannot override a woman's fundamental right to motherhood.

A division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode delivered the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by a 28-year-old dental professional from Coimbatore, quashing a penalty of ₹23.6 lakh imposed for allegedly failing to complete a compulsory bond period.


The court held that contractual obligations arising from service bonds cannot be used to penalise women for exercising their maternity rights. "No bond can override the right to maternity leave, which is a facet of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any contract, agreement or bond that penalises a woman for taking maternity leave or tries to deny her this right is inconsistent with Section 27 of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961," the judges said.

According to the petitioner's counsel, Akshay Sudame, the petitioner completed her Bachelor of Dental Surgery in 2018 from MGR Medical University, Chennai, and later completed her Master of dental surgery in conservative dentistry and endodontics in 2023.

The petitioner was recommended for appointment as assistant professor in conservative dentistry at Govt Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, for a bond period of 365 days. During her tenure, she applied for maternity leave from May 1 to September 30, 2024.

After completing her leave, she wrote to the authorities seeking permission to resume duty and complete the bond period, also stating she did not receive salary during the maternity leave.

However, the DMER informed the college that the 5-month maternity leave period would not count towards completion of the bond and directed that the petitioner must serve an equivalent duration to obtain a bond completion certificate.

Authorities warned that failure to complete the extended service period would attract a financial penalty. A calculation sheet prepared on December 21, 2024, assessed the penalty at ₹23.58 lakh, and an order of January 6, 2025, directed her to pay the amount for alleged non-completion of the bond.

Challenging the decision, the petitioner argued maternity leave is a fundamental right linked to dignity, health and reproductive choice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The HC observed that while the purpose of compulsory rural or social service bonds is to ensure that doctors contribute to public service after receiving subsidised education, such obligations cannot curtail maternity protections.

The judges emphasised that maternity leave allows a woman "to take time from her job, give birth, recover and care for the newborn without fear of losing her employment", adding the period around childbirth is crucial for the health of both mother and child.

Section 27 of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 makes it clear that provisions of the Act override any inconsistent agreement, service rule or contract. "She is also entitled to the same protective umbrella as available to regular employees when it comes to maternity-related entitlement," the court said.

Allowing the petition, the HC quashed the penalty order dated January 6, 2025 and directed that the amount, if already paid, be refunded within 4 months. The judges also directed the authorities to allow her to complete the remaining portion of the bond period, if feasible, or otherwise issue a certificate treating the bond as completed.