Woman joins short-term contractual job, takes maternity leave for three months, govt denies her salary, High Court rules temporary employees also enjoy benefits

A woman working as a guest lecturer at a government college in Chhattisgarh has secured relief from the High Court after the State argued she could not claim maternity benefits because she was not a regular employee. The court held that her guest lecturer status alone could not justify denying her salary for the period she took maternity leave.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the State authorities to take an appropriate decision on Pushpa Jaiswal's claim for unpaid maternity salary in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines. The authorities have been asked to act at the earliest, preferably within three months of receiving a copy of the order passed on October 27, 2026.

Guest lecturer joined government college in August 2024

Jaiswal, 34, has been working as a guest lecturer in political science at Government Gundadhur PG College in Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, since August 16, 2024.


According to the petition, she took maternity leave and rejoined her duties on August 19, 2026. However, the monetary benefits she claimed for the period of maternity leave remained unpaid, prompting her to approach the High Court.

She submitted representations to the authorities on May 29, 2026, and August 5, 2026, seeking the release of the benefits. The authorities did not grant her the relief she sought, according to her case before the court.

Jaiswal argued that Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, entitled her to maternity benefits and that the State could not deny those benefits merely because she was employed as a guest lecturer.

She also challenged Clause 11.2 of a government circular dated July 17, 2026, seeking its quashing. Her petition sought a revised circular extending maternity leave benefits to guest lecturers in accordance with the law.

State argued she was not a regular employee

The State opposed Jaiswal's claim on the ground that she was not a regular employee.

Its counsel argued that since she had been appointed as a guest lecturer, she could not claim monetary benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

The dispute, therefore, centred on whether a woman's employment status could be used to deny her maternity benefits, even when she was performing the duties of a regular lecturer.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru of the Chhattisgarh High Court examined the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act and the Supreme Court judgments cited in the order before addressing the State's argument.

High Court says the law does not restrict maternity benefits to regular employees

The High Court said it found no provision in the Maternity Benefit Act that restricted maternity benefits exclusively to regular women employees while excluding those engaged on a casual basis, on daily wages or as guest employees.

The judge referred to the purpose of maternity protection, explaining that a woman in advanced pregnancy should not be compelled to undertake work detrimental to her health or the health of the unborn child.

The court also highlighted the broader purpose of the 1961 Act: protecting a woman's ability to manage pregnancy and motherhood without losing the employment-related benefits provided by law.

A key consideration in Jaiswal's case was that the State had not disputed that her work was similar to that of a regular lecturer.

The order records that she performed the same duties and responsibilities as a regular lecturer. The State's objection was based on her status as a guest lecturer rather than any difference in the work she performed.

The High Court held that the authorities were not justified in treating her guest lecturer status as a reason to deny her monetary benefits during maternity leave.

Supreme Court rulings on maternity benefits for non-regular employees

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Dr Kavita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 421.

That case examined whether a woman employed on a contract could receive maternity benefits even when the period covered by those benefits extended beyond her contractual tenure.

The Supreme Court held that maternity benefits, once the statutory eligibility conditions were met, could continue beyond the period of employment. The entitlement was not necessarily limited by the duration of the employment contract.

The judgment also discussed the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), reported in (2000) 3 SCC 224.

In that case, the Supreme Court extended maternity benefits to women engaged on daily wages through muster rolls. The court had found no basis in the legislation for restricting maternity benefits to regular employees alone.

These decisions were relevant to Jaiswal's case because they addressed the distinction between regular employment and other forms of engagement.

Applying the principles discussed in those rulings, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the State could not deny her maternity salary solely because she worked as a guest lecturer.

What the High Court directed the State to do

In its October 27, 2026, order, the High Court said that salary for the period during which Jaiswal took maternity leave could not be denied on the ground that she was serving as a guest lecturer.

The judge further observed that once maternity leave had been granted, the authorities were obliged to release the salary for the relevant period.

The operative direction requires the State authorities to take an appropriate decision on Jaiswal's claim for unpaid salary in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines. The decision must be taken at the earliest, preferably within three months from the date the authorities receive a copy of the order.

The order was passed by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru after hearing advocate Shubham Tiwari for Jaiswal and State panel lawyer Shahil Singh.