DHANASHRI RAMESH KARKHANIS v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI THROUGH ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Entitlement of Contractual Employees to Maternity Benefits - Statutory Supremacy of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Over Restrictive Service Rules and Contractual Agreements.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:5400-DB
Decision Date: 27-02-2026
List of Laws
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961; Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21, 42, and 51(c); Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (Service) Regulation, 1989; Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
- Facts: The Petitioner, a doctor serving as an Assistant Professor on a contractual basis at Seth G.S. Medical College and K.E.M. Hospital (administered by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai), applied for maternity leave and benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The Respondents rejected her claim vide an impugned communication dated 21 October 2024, contending that as a contractual employee, she was not eligible for such benefits under the Corporation’s Service Rules, which reportedly required two years of regular service. The Respondents further alleged that the Petitioner had suppressed the fact of her pregnancy at the time of her last contract renewal.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the rejection letter and a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Respondents to extend all benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
- Issue: Whether a contractual employee is entitled to maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and whether restrictive service rules or contractual terms can override the statutory provisions of the Act.
- Holding: Yes, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefits. The Court held that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, makes no distinction between permanent and contractual employees, and its provisions override any inconsistent service rules or contractual agreements.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria under Section 5(2) of the Act by working for more than eighty days in the twelve months preceding her delivery. Crucially, the Court invoked Section 27 of the Act, which contains a non obstante clause ensuring that the Act's provisions prevail over any inconsistent "agreement or contract of service". The Bench observed that the right to maternity benefits is an integral part of the right to life with dignity under Article 21 and aligns with the Directive Principles under Article 42 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the allegation of suppression, noting that the Petitioner had diligently informed the authorities. It further noted that the Respondents had previously agreed "in principle" to pay before performing a "volte-face", which was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14.
🔒 For Members Only