Dr. Priti Saket v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:24642) was decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 24 March 2026 by Justice Vishal Dhagat. The case concerned denial of honorarium during maternity leave to a guest faculty engaged at a Government college. While the petitioner had initially been granted six months’ maternity leave with pay, a subsequent order withdrew payment relying on Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and a State circular, citing non-fulfilment of the 80-day work requirement. The High Court held that although the petitioner was a contractual employee, she was entitled to protection under the Maternity Benefit Act as the institution qualified as an “establishment.” Adopting a welfare-oriented interpretation, the Court ruled that the 80-day requirement under Section 5(2) should not be rigidly applied to State Government establishments in light of constitutional obligations under Articles 38 and 39. Accordingly, the Court set aside the denial of honorarium and directed grant of paid maternity leave for 26 weeks, while clarifying that any additional leave would be without pay.

Legal Issue

1. Whether a guest faculty/contractual employee is entitled to paid maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

2. Whether the condition of minimum 80 days of work in preceding 12 months (Section 5(2)) applies to employees working in State Government establishments.

3. Whether denial of honorarium during maternity leave was legally justified.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, Dr. Priti Saket, was engaged as a guest faculty on a contractual basis at a Government college in Madhya Pradesh. She was initially granted maternity leave for a period of six months along with payment of honorarium. However, by a subsequent amended order dated 16.06.2023, the college authorities modified the earlier decision and directed that although maternity leave would continue for six months, no honorarium would be paid during this period. This modification was made on the basis of a State Government circular dated 25.02.2022 and Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the denial of paid maternity leave, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that she was legally entitled to maternity benefits including wages. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner did not fulfill the statutory requirement of having worked for at least 80 days in the preceding twelve months, and therefore was not eligible for paid maternity leave.

Judgment

The High Court allowed the petition in part and adopted a welfare-oriented and constitutional interpretation of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The Court held that although the petitioner, being a guest faculty, was not a regular government employee and therefore not governed by service rules, she was still entitled to the protection of the Maternity Benefit Act as the institution qualified as an “establishment” under the Act. While Section 5(2) of the Act prescribes a minimum requirement of 80 days of work in the preceding twelve months to claim maternity benefits, the Court held that such a condition should not be rigidly applied in the case of State Government establishments, given the State’s constitutional obligation to promote social justice and welfare under Articles 38 and 39. Consequently, the impugned order denying honorarium was set aside. The Court directed that the petitioner be granted paid maternity leave for a period of 26 weeks in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, with 8 weeks preceding and 18 weeks following delivery. However, for any period beyond 26 weeks, the leave would be treated as leave without pay. The Court further clarified that the relaxation of the 80-day requirement would apply specifically to State Government establishments and not to other employers.

 Access the Official Judgment/Order here

Case Name

Dr. Priti Saket v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Neutral Citation

2026:MPHC-JBP:24642

Date of Judgment

24 March 2026

Bench

Hon’ble Justice Vishal Dhagat