“Cannot, by itself, be treated as a conclusive ground”: that is how the Rajasthan High Court has described the nature of a woman’s employment when maternity leave is at stake, quashing a Pollution Control Board’s refusal to a contractual consultant.
Jodhpur: A contractual consultant of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board must be given 180 days of maternity leave with admissible remuneration, the Rajasthan High Court has directed, holding that whether a woman employee is regular, casual or contractual cannot by itself decide whether maternity benefits are denied [Smt. Shivangi Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan and Another].
Justice Bipin Gupta, sitting at Jodhpur, allowed the writ petition in a reportable judgment pronounced on October 16, 2026. The matter had been reserved on October 8, 2026.
The holding
Following Dr. Kavita Yadav, the Court held that maternity benefits are not coterminous with the contractual tenure. In its words, the nature of employment:
cannot, by itself, be treated as a conclusive ground for denying maternity benefits where the applicable statutory conditions are fulfilled.
The refusal, the Court found, rested only on Condition No. 5 of the appointment order and was not an independent determination of eligibility. Where a contractual condition runs contrary to the Act, the Court held, the condition must give way, and the refusal was therefore inconsistent with the statute.
A one-year consultancy and a request for six months
Under an appointment order dated July 25, 2022, the petitioner joined as Consultant (AEE) for one year from August 4, 2022, on a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs. 40,000. She applied for six months’ maternity leave from December 26, 2022.
By a letter dated December 16, 2022, the Member Secretary, SEAC-I, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, turned the request down, relying on Condition No. 5 of the appointment order, which allowed only State Government declared holidays. A legal notice dated December 22, 2022 went unanswered, and she moved the High Court.
The respondents argued that the Board, and not the second respondent, had appointed her, and that her tenure ended on August 3, 2023 without extension, leaving her with no enforceable right beyond it.
Statute, rule and precedent
The petition rested on the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, Section 27 of which gives the Act effect despite any contrary agreement, and on Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which provides for 180 days of maternity leave. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in MCD v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) (2000) 3 SCC 224, Deepika Singh v. PGIMER (2023) 13 SCC 681 and Dr. Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2024) 1 SCC 421, as well as its own earlier rulings in Minakshi Chaudhary v. RSRTC and Rani Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan.
Quashed, with a three-month deadline
The letter of December 16, 2022 stands quashed and set aside. The respondents must extend maternity benefits for 180 days from December 26, 2022 and pay the admissible remuneration within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. Pending applications were disposed of.
Why contract terms cannot override the Act
Consultant and contractual engagements often limit leave to declared holidays. The judgment confirms that such a term cannot be used to defeat a statutory entitlement where the Act’s conditions are met.
It also shows that the contract running out while the case was pending does not by itself wipe out the claim: the Court quashed the refusal and ordered the benefit and remuneration for the 180-day period.
Case Title: Smt. Shivangi Khandelwal v. State of Rajasthan and Another [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1561/2023]
Bench: Justice Bipin Gupta, Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur
Date of Judgment: October 16, 2026