In a significant judgment reinforcing the principles of equality and dignity, the Orissa High Court has held that a woman employee cannot be denied maternity benefits merely on the ground that her employment is contractual.

The Court stated that such a denial is “abhorrent to the very notions of humanity and womanhood.”

A Division Bench comprising Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State of Odisha challenging a Single Bench decision that had granted maternity leave to the respondent, a contractual employee appointed as a 'Young Professional'.

While affirming the Single Bench’s decision, the Court emphasized the importance of purposive interpretation of State welfare policies. Citing the ancient verse “yatr naaryaastu pujyante ramante tatr devatah” (where women are honored, divinity flourishes), the Bench observed that ideals of honouring womanhood should guide the interpretation and implementation of welfare measures.

The respondent, after her appointment through a government advertisement, applied for maternity leave from 17.08.2016 to 12.02.2017 following the birth of her daughter. Her request was rejected without any stated reason, prompting her to file a writ petition. The Single Judge allowed her plea and directed the State authorities to grant her maternity leave.

Challenging this decision, the government contended that as a contractual employee, the respondent was not entitled to such benefits, particularly when the policy governing her engagement did not provide for the same.

Court's Findings

Rejecting the State’s arguments, the Court held that maternity benefits must extend to all women employees, irrespective of the nature of their appointment. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kabita Yadav v. Union of India and a Finance Department Memorandum dated 31.03.2012, the Court concluded that the respondent was entitled to maternity leave.

It was further held that for the purpose of such benefits, all women constitute a “homogenous class” and any artificial classification based on the status of employment violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

“A Welfare State cannot be heard to say that a Policy of the kind has to be kept away regardless of its socio-welfare object to serve all classes of persons employed in the State,” the Bench observed.

Highlighting the importance of “zero separation” between a lactating mother and her child, the Court underscored that both the mother and the baby have a fundamental right to be together and nurture during the formative period. It invoked Article 10(2) of the ICESCR and Article 11(2)(b) of CEDAW to support this view, reiterating India’s duty as a signatory to uphold such international commitments.

The judgment also drew strength from constitutional jurisprudence, citing Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin.

Dismissing the writ appeal, the Court upheld the Single Bench’s direction to grant maternity leave to the respondent, reinforcing the State’s duty to implement welfare policies inclusively.

Case Title: State of Odisha & Anr. v. Smt. Anindita Mishra
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 1074 of 2023
Date of Judgment: June 24, 2025
Counsel for Appellants: Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, Additional Government Advocate