Bombay HC quashes Rs 23.58 lakh bond penalty on dentist, says maternity leave not break in service

Mumbai: While considering a dentist's plea against a penalty imposed for allegedly not completing her bond period after she took maternity leave while serving as an Assistant Professor under the Social Responsibility Service Scheme, the Bombay High Court held that maternity leave is a fundamental right which cannot be treated as a break in service. The bench observed that it cannot be used to penalise a woman for exercising her right to motherhood under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Allowing her writ petition, division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode further stated that the petitioner cannot be denied such a right only because the bond was executed by her under Social Responsibility Service Scheme and not holding permanent status as she is also entitled to the same protective umbrella as available to regular employees when it comes to maternity related entitlement. 

The Bench observed, 

"Maternity leave is not a break in service and bond cannot be used to penalise a woman for exercising her right to motherhood. No bond can override the right to maternity leave which is a facet of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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." 

Quashing the Rs 23.58 lakh penalty, the court ordered that the penalty, if paid by the petitioner, shall be refunded back to her within four months from the date of the order, and the petitioner shall be paid salary for the maternity leave period.

The petitioner doctor completed her BDS from The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University in 2018 and later finished her one-year Compulsory Rotatory Internship at Chettinad Dental College and Research Institute, Kanchipuram, from October 2018 to October 2019. She subsequently qualified for NEET-MDS and completed her MDS in Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics in 2023.

Following this, the Directorate of Medical Education and Research published a vacancy list on November 2, 2023, for allotment under the Government Social Responsibility Service (bond service) for MDS graduates. Among the 14 vacant posts at Government Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, was one post of Assistant Professor in Conservative Dentistry. The petitioner was recommended for the post and was appointed for a bond period of 365 days from December 11, 2023, to December 10, 2024. She joined the post on December 13, 2023.

In March 2024, she learned that she was pregnant and applied for maternity leave from May 1 to September 30, 2024. After giving birth to a baby girl on June 17, 2024, she later requested that the college allow her to complete the bond period after the leave. However, the Director of Medical Education and Research informed the college that she must complete the five-month maternity leave period to obtain the bond completion certificate, failing which a penalty would be imposed.

Subsequently, the authorities calculated a penalty of Rs 23,58,403. They issued an order on January 6, 2025, directing her to pay the amount for failing to complete the bond period, following which she challenged in the High Court.

Arguments

Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that maternity leave is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and denying it amounts to a violation of a woman’s dignity. 

He submitted that absence from work before and after childbirth is necessary for the well-being of both the mother and the child, and employers have a duty to be sensitive to the physical difficulties faced by women during pregnancy and after delivery. 

Therefore, the counsel stated that imposing a penalty for taking maternity leave is unconstitutional.

On the other hand, the State argued that the Social Responsibility Service Scheme does not provide for maternity leave during the bond period. Referring to a Government Resolution dated February 8, 2008, the State submitted that a penalty must be imposed if the bond period is not completed.

The State alleged that the petitioner had not disclosed her pregnancy at the time of joining as an Assistant Professor. The State further contended that since the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, does not apply in this case, the penalty imposed was not illegal and prayed that the petition be dismissed.

Court's Observation

The Court observed that the objective of the compulsory service bonds for medical professionals is to ensure that doctors who benefit from the infrastructure provided by the Government contribute back to the community by rendering public service.

"The fees charged per year from the students undergoing post graduate as well as super-speciality courses is only a fraction of the total expenses on the medical education incurred for each such student every year. As a matter of its social policy, the State Government does not charge fees commensurate with the cost of medical education from students, who pursue their M.B.B.S. degrees or post-graduation and super-specialization in government and municipal medical colleges. 

Admissions to such colleges are highly regarded because of the exposure and knowledge which students gain in the course of their medical studies in those institutions. The State spends a considerable amount of money in providing subsidized medical education. As a condition attaching to the provision of subsidized medical education, the State legitimately asserts that on the completion of their studies, such doctors should be required to render public service either in government or municipal medical colleges or in the defence services," said the court. 

Reverting back to the facts, the court emphasised that the petitioner was required to go on maternity leave during the bond period. It explained that maternity leave refers to the absence from employment of a woman before and after the birth of a child and includes pre-natal leave, post-natal leave, and protection from dismissal during pregnancy and leave period and right to return to the same position. 

The bench further observed that such leave arises out of unavoidable circumstances, as motherhood does not end with the birth of a child. A newborn requires continuous care from the mother, particularly during the initial days which are crucial for the child’s well-being. The Court added that pregnancy and the period immediately after childbirth are critical not only for the mother’s health but also for the child’s overall development.

The Court noted that the petitioner remained on maternity leave from May 1, 2024 to September 30, 2024. When she later sought permission to resume duties and complete her bond period, the authorities imposed a penalty for not completing the bond service, as the maternity leave period was not treated as part of the duty period.

The authorities justified their action by stating that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 were not applicable in the present case and that the Social Responsibility Service Scheme did not provide for maternity leave during the bond period.

In view of these submissions, the Court said the key issue for consideration was whether maternity leave is a right and, if so, whether such a right would prevail even when the applicable regulations or guidelines do not specifically provide for maternity leave.

To examine this issue, the bench referred to various judicial precedents. It relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Police vs Ravina Yadav (2024) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu.

Summarising its findings, the Court observed that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live with dignity.

The Court observed, "It is fundamental right of everyone to live with human dignity which includes protection of the health. The pregnancy and child birth require medical care and recovery time. The adequate leave reduces health risk for both the mother and the child. Early bonding, breast feeding and parental care are crucial for child’s physical and emotional development."

The bench clarified that motherhood cannot be treated as an excuse to avoid work. However, when a woman is genuinely unable to attend work due to childbirth and childcare responsibilities, an employer cannot penalise her for such absence.

"Therefore, even if the Act of 1961, is applicable, no Service Rules can stop a woman from claiming protection of her basic right to live with dignity as a mother. Any action by the employer in such a matter would amount to taking away and going against the dignity of the woman."

The bench further added, 

"The maternity leave allows the working women to take time from her job, give birth, recover and care for the new born child without fear of losing her employment. This right is essential for safeguarding the health, dignity and economic security of mothers and their children. Therefore, the right to maternity leave is not just a workplace benefit, a necessary protection that promises health, equality and social progress. Thus, it is bounden duty of the employer to be sensitive and responsive to the physical difficulties, which she would face in performing her duties at the work place while bringing up the child after birth."

The Court observed that the Directorate of Medical Education and Research was expected to act with greater sensitivity in such matters, considering its awareness of the care required by a mother before and after childbirth. However, by imposing the penalty, the authorities acted contrary to the safeguards relating to maternity rights and undermined the petitioner’s dignity, the Court noted.

"In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the period during which the petitioner was on maternity leave needs to be considered as duty period and the petitioner is entitled for salary for the said period. Excluding the maternity leave period the petitioner has shown readiness and willingness to complete her bond period as Assistant Professor, the same shall be permitted if there is no any legal impediment," the court said. 

Allowing the plea, the Bombay High Court quashed the Rs 23.58 lakh penalty, directed refund of the amount within four months and ordered payment of salary for the maternity leave period, while permitting the petitioner to complete the remaining bond service or be issued a bond completion certificate.

To view the court order, click on the link below:

Also read- HC comes to doctor's rescue, rules maternity leave cannot be clubbed with regular leaves to cancel candidature