Orissa High Court Affirms Maternity Benefit as Constitutional and Human Right: Holds State Obliged to Extend Paid Leave to Contractual Employees to Protect Both Maternal Health and Child’s Right to Care

Case title:
State of Odisha & Another v.
Smt. Anindita Mishra

Date of Order:
24th June, 2025

Bench:
Judge Dixit Krishna Shripad
Judge M.S Sahoo

Parties:
State of Odisha & Another ...... Appellants
Smt. Anindita Mishra ..... Respondent

SUBJECT

The Orissa High Court in the case of State of Odisha & Another v. Smt. Anindita Mishra held that maternity benefit is a constitutional and human right that cannot be denied based on employment category. Dismissing the State’s writ appeal, the Division Bench observed that a baby has a fundamental right to be breastfed and cared for in a reasonably healthy condition. These rights together create a State obligation to provide maternity benefits, like paid leave, as far as resources allow. The Government Memorandum (Extends maternity leave up to 180 days to women employees engaged on contract, subject to the leave period falling within the contract duration), being a socio-welfare measure, must be interpreted liberally to fulfill its purpose, an approach rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Article 11(2)(b) of CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women): Requires States to ensure paid maternity leave or comparable social benefits.
Article 10(2) of ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights): Addresses maternity protection and welfare.

The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 

• It is a central law in India that regulates the employment of women before and after childbirth. Its primary purpose is to protect the dignity of motherhood by providing for paid maternity leave, nursing breaks, and other benefits. Under the Act, eligible women are entitled to maternity leave of up to 26 weeks (for the first two children), medical bonus, and protection from dismissal during maternity absence. 
• The Act applies to factories, mines, plantations, shops, and establishments employing a specified number of persons, and aims to ensure that no woman is denied her right to proper care and recovery during and after pregnancy, regardless of the nature of her employment.

OVERVIEW

The respondent was engaged as a “Young Professional” on a contractual basis in the Health and Family Welfare Department. After delivering a female child, she applied for maternity leave from 17.08.2016 to 12.02.2017, supported by medical documents. The 2nd appellant rejected her request on 07.06.2017 without assigning any reason. She then filed a writ petition to enforce her right to maternity leave.

The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, directing the grant of maternity leave under the State Government’s Office Memorandum dated March 31, 2012, which provides 180 days of maternity leave to female contractual employees, provided the leave period is within the contract term. Aggrieved, the State filed a writ of appeal, arguing that as the engagement was purely contractual, such a benefit could not be claimed.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether maternity benefits can be denied purely because the employee is on contractual employment?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the appellant-State argued that the maternity benefit is not available unless the claim strictly fits within the State Policy. He contends that if the impugned decision lacked reasons, the writ court should have set it aside and remanded the matter. 
2. He further submitted that as the respondent-employee is governed by contract terms, she is not entitled to maternity benefits. Since these aspects were not properly considered by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT.

1. The second appellant issued an order rejecting her maternity application without explanation.  
2. It was contended that it is commonly known that a fundamental component of good governance is the provision of justifications for administrative decisions. 

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

• The court reflected upon the concept of maternity benefit is reflected in Article 10(2) of the ICESCR and Article 11(2)(b) of CEDAW, which call for maternity leave with pay or comparable social benefits through state policies. The conventions recognize the social importance of maternity and the role of both parents in raising children. The principle of maternity leave rests on ensuring “zero separation” between a mother and her newborn, as medical experts agree this bonding is vital for their wellbeing.  
• As a constitutionally mandated Welfare State, the Government must act as a model employer (Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam). Though the respondent is not a regular employee, she was selected as a “Young Professional” through a proper process and posted to the Health & Family Welfare Department on a renewable yearly contract from 20.05.2014.  
• Justice Krishna Sripad further clarified that the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner held that a non-speaking order must stand on its reasons and cannot later be justified externally. An employee cannot be expected to search for hidden reasons. Thus, the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the rejection order. 
• The contention that the learned Single Judge should have remanded the matter for fresh consideration is unconvincing. No supporting rule or precedent was cited. Remand is warranted only in complex matters requiring expert evaluation, which is not the case here. 
• The sole question before the learned Single Judge was whether a contract employee is entitled to maternity benefits under the existing State policy, a question of law resolvable through legal interpretation. Further, the appellants do not dispute the existence of such a policy, and the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, also applies. The writ court’s jurisdiction here is adequate, and no exception justifying remand has been shown. 
• The Court finally held that a contractual status cannot be used as an excuse to deny maternity protection, citing Dr. Kabita Yadav v. Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (2024). The Court noted that it is against human and female values to deny maternity benefits on the basis of employment status, which requires paid maternity leave or equivalent benefits without loss of employment or status. It mentioned the age-old adage "yatr naaryaastu pujyante ramante tatra devatah"- "gods rejoice where women are honored", which ought to direct a purposeful interpretation of state policies regarding the welfare of women. 

CONCLUSION

The learned Single Judge rightly granted relief to the employee, and the order cannot be faulted on any ground. Accordingly, this appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The impugned order shall be implemented, and a compliance report shall be filed.