CA manager with Rs 2.6 lakh salary returns after maternity leave on same pay but was given less responsibilites; court orders Rs 10 lakh compensation

A woman with 14 years of professional experience returned to work after maternity leave and found that while her salary and designation remained unchanged, her managerial responsibilities had been reduced. The Delhi High Court has now ruled that maternity protection cannot be limited to preserving a woman's salary and job title.

The Court held that statutory maternity protection also covers the work an employee performs, her position in the organisational hierarchy, supervisory powers, and opportunities for appraisal and promotion.

Justice Sachin Datta, in a judgment delivered on August 31, 2026, said a woman returning to work after maternity leave should ordinarily be restored to the position she held before going on leave.


If that position has ceased to exist for genuine and demonstrable organisational reasons, the employer must provide an alternative role that is as close as reasonably possible to the original position in terms of pay, grade, status, responsibilities, managerial authority and opportunities for career progression.

What the case is about

The ruling came on a petition filed by Chartered Accountant Rakhi Bisht, who alleged that her professional position was adversely affected after she informed her employer about her pregnancy and later returned from maternity leave.

According to an ANI report, Bisht had around 14 years of professional experience when she joined the organisation in 2022 as Manager, Accounting, with a monthly salary of Rs 2.60 lakh.

She said she informed the management about her pregnancy in May 2023 and was subsequently moved to another team. She went on maternity leave in December 2023 and returned to work in July 2024.

After returning, she was informed that her previous position was no longer available and was instead placed in the Treasury Department. Bisht alleged that the new assignment was substantially inferior to the managerial accounting responsibilities she had previously handled. She also claimed that she was not given any reporting staff and was excluded from managerial meetings.

What the company said

The employer denied Bisht's allegations and said there had been no change in her designation, level, salary or seniority.

It said that following an organisational restructuring, she was assigned investment accounting and currency revaluation responsibilities while continuing at the same managerial level.

Creche availability

The High Court also considered the issue of the creche facility at the workplace.

Bisht had approached the employer about the availability of a creche in September 2024. She was initially told that no such facility was available at the time. The employer later stated that a creche did exist, but was not functional on the days relevant to her request.

The High Court held that merely having a creche facility is not sufficient if it cannot actually be used when an employee requires it. A facility that is non-functional at the relevant time does not meet the statutory requirement under Section 11-A of the Maternity Benefit Act.

Why Delhi High Court ruled in favour of the woman

The Court said an employer cannot comply with the law on paper by retaining a woman's salary and designation while taking away meaningful responsibilities, decision-making authority or future career opportunities. Such an approach, it observed, would effectively allow an employer to accomplish indirectly something that cannot be done directly under the law.

The High Court also clarified the scope of Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The provision bars an employer from changing the conditions of a woman's service to her disadvantage during the period of her statutorily protected absence. The Court said this protection is not limited to cases where employment itself is terminated.

According to the Court, the phrase "conditions of service" covers the substantive elements of a person's employment. This includes the nature and substance of the duties assigned, grade and functional position, reporting structure, supervisory responsibilities, and consideration for appraisal and promotion.

"Retention of the same designation and remuneration is, therefore, necessary but not by itself sufficient" where other aspects of employment are changed to the employee's detriment, the Court held.

The Court said such an interpretation would reduce Section 12 to little more than a formality and undermine the purpose of maternity legislation. It said the legislation is intended to safeguard the dignity of motherhood, economic security and a woman's professional standing.

The Court found inconsistencies in the employer's pleadings and communications. It noted that the employer had said Bisht's earlier position had been assigned to another employee who was promoted while she was away on maternity leave. An internal communication placed before the Court also referred to assigning activities to Bisht merely to "keep her engaged" after her return.

The Court ordered respondent no. 2 to pay Bisht compensation of Rs 10 lakh, along with Rs 1.5 lakh towards costs. While determining the compensation, it considered her professional standing as a Chartered Accountant, her approximately 14 years of experience and her monthly salary of Rs 2.6 lakh. The compensation was roughly equal to four months' salary, the Court noted.

The compensation and costs are to be paid within eight weeks. If the payment is not made within that period, the amount will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the judgment until it is realised.

The Court held that, as a general rule, a woman returning from maternity leave is entitled to be restored to the position she held before her leave.

If that position has genuinely become unavailable because of demonstrable organisational reasons, the employer must offer an alternative that is substantially equivalent. The comparison cannot be limited to salary and must also consider grade, status, role, responsibilities, managerial authority and prospects for career advancement.

The employer must also explain to the woman, before she returns to work, why her previous position is no longer available. It must provide details of the alternative role, including the grade, remuneration, reporting structure and duties attached to it.

If the employee objects to the proposed arrangement, the employer must consider the objection and convey its decision in writing, along with the reasons.

The Court also clarified that a woman can herself request changes to her duties, working hours, workplace, work pattern or seek an alternative role after returning from maternity leave.

However, such a request cannot later be treated as her acceptance of reduced service conditions or as a waiver of the statutory protection available to her. Nor can the arrangement be held against her while considering her appraisal, increment or promotion.

The employer had challenged the maintainability of the petition under Article 226, arguing that the matter arose from a private employment relationship and concerned contractual conditions of service.

The High Court rejected this contention. It held that Bisht was not seeking enforcement of a contractual provision but protection available to her under Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act.

The Court also referred to Section 27 of the Act, which gives its provisions an overriding effect over inconsistent terms in an employment contract. On this basis, it held that an employer cannot avoid a statutory obligation simply because it is a private entity.

The High Court also rejected the argument that Bisht had an alternative statutory remedy. It said the case involved questions concerning fundamental rights and constitutional issues relating to equality, dignity and maternity protection. The Court also noted that the relevant rules and schemes under the Code on Social Security, 2020 had not yet been framed.

The High Court further issued broader directions concerning maternity safeguards that could affect private employers. It directed the Union of India to use its powers under Sections 149, 150 and 154 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 to frame rules or schemes, or issue directions, aimed at ensuring effective implementation of maternity protections.

The proposed framework is to cover workplace accommodation related to pregnancy, protection of an employee's role and status after maternity leave, lactation support, disclosure and functioning of creche facilities, timelines for dealing with maternity-related grievances, safeguards against retaliation, and the designation of authorities empowered to receive and decide complaints, including requests for urgent interim protection. The exercise is to be completed within six months from the date of the judgment.

The framework contemplated by the Court would also require pregnancy-related accommodation requests to be assessed in writing. It would provide safeguards against compelling an employee to take leave or accept an inferior position, require reasoned written decisions where an employee's role or reporting structure is affected, and protect employees from retaliation.

In its concluding observations, the Court said the constitutional protections under Articles 14, 15, 21 and 42, read together with maternity legislation, mean that pregnancy and motherhood cannot be allowed to result in professional disadvantage.

The petition filed by Bisht was accordingly disposed of with the declarations, compensation and directions set out above.