Guest lecturers also entitled to maternity pay, rules Chhattisgarh High Court

A woman cannot be denied maternity salary just because she works as a guest lecturer rather than a permanent employee, the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled, holding that the protection under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, extends to all eligible women workers regardless of the nature of their appointment.

Hearing a writ petition by Dr Garibin Mashkare, a guest lecturer at Rani Durgawati Government College, Salhewara, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru directed the state on July 14 to decide a woman’s claim for unpaid maternity salary within three months.

“The salary for the period when the petitioner had gone to maternity leave cannot be denied on the ground that she was serving as a Guest Lecturer…once the petitioner was granted maternity leave, the respondents are under an obligation to release the salary…in respect of the period when she had gone for maternity leave,” the court said.

The plea had sought directions to the authorities to decide her application seeking benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act after her maternity leave was approved but salary for the period remained unpaid.

The judge said the Maternity Benefit Act was enacted to secure women’s right to pregnancy and maternity leave and to provide them as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that once maternity leave was granted, the authorities were under a legal obligation to release salary for the leave period.

Request for benefit, state’s opposition

According to the petition, Dr Mashkare has been working as a guest lecturer since August 24, 2024. During her pregnancy, she applied for maternity leave on August 18, 2025, under the 1961 Act. The leave was allowed and she resumed duty on October 25, 2025.

After rejoining, she sought financial benefits under Section 5 of the Act for the period she was on maternity leave. However, the authorities took no action, prompting her to move the high court. Her counsel also relied on earlier judgments of the Chhattisgarh High Court recognising similar claims.

Story continues below this ad

Opposing the petition, the state government argued that the petitioner was not entitled to monetary benefits because she was as a guest lecturer and not a regular employee. The high court rejected this argument, observing that the Maternity Benefit Act does not contain any provision restricting its benefits only to regular employees while excluding women engaged on casual, muster roll, daily wage or guest basis.

Justice Guru noted that the petitioner discharged the same duties and responsibilities as regular lecturers, which the state had not denied. Therefore, describing her only as a guest lecturer could not be a ground to deny maternity salary.

Woman can’t be compelled: Court

A woman employee in an advanced state of pregnancy cannot be compelled to undertake hard labour as it would be detrimental to her health and that of the foetus, the court stated, adding that this is why the 1961 Act allowed her to avail of maternity leave for certain periods before and after the delivery.

“I have gone through the different provisions of the Act, but I do not find anything contained in the Act which entitles only regular women employees to the benefit of maternity leave and not to those who are engaged on casual basis or on muster roll on daily wage basis or the employees engaged as guest,” Justice Guru said.

Story continues below this ad

He held that once maternity leave was granted, the authorities were under a legal obligation to release salary for the leave period. Disposing of the petition, the high court directed the authorities to decide the petitioner’s request in accordance with the rules, and pass orders on her claim for unpaid maternity salary, preferably within three months.

Supreme Court rulings

While deciding the case, the high court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr Kavita Yadav v Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2024), which held that once the legal conditions are met, the woman is entitled to maternity benefits and it can continue even if they extend beyond her employment contract.

The court also referred to the landmark judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Female Workers (Muster Roll) (2000), where the Supreme Court extended maternity benefits to women employed on daily wages, holding that the law makes no distinction between regular and casual workers.

Another precedent cited was Deepika Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal (2022), in which the Supreme Court observed that maternity laws are intended to advance constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and protection for working women while enabling them to balance motherhood and employment.