The Delhi High Court has held that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to be restored to the post she held immediately before proceeding on leave. If that post is no longer available for bona fide and demonstrable organisational reasons, she must be offered a position as nearly equivalent as possible in terms of pay, grade, status, role, responsibilities, managerial authority and prospects for advancement, a bench of Justice Sachin Datta said.
The ruling, pronounced on August 31, 2026, arose from a petition filed by Chartered Accountant Rakhi Bisht, who alleged professional disadvantage after disclosing her pregnancy and returning from maternity leave. According to the petition, Bisht was appointed as a chartered accountant with a private company in 2022. After informing the management of her pregnancy in May 2023, her responsibilities were altered and she was transferred to another team in September. She proceeded on maternity leave in December 2023 and returned in July 2024. Upon returning, she was told her original position was no longer available and was assigned to the Treasury Department. She claimed the new role was unrelated to her managerial accounting position and alleged that the work was substantially inferior, leaving her without reporting staff and excluded from managerial meetings.
The employer disputed the allegations, maintaining that her designation, level, salary and seniority remained unchanged.
The High Court held that Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which prohibits an employer from varying to a woman's disadvantage any conditions of her service during her statutorily protected absence, is not confined to termination of employment. The Court said the expression "conditions of service" covers the substantive incidents of employment, including the nature and content of duties, grade and functional status, reporting hierarchy, 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 permitting an employer to maintain an employee's salary and designation while stripping her of meaningful responsibilities, authority or career prospects would allow the employer to achieve indirectly what the law prohibits directly.
The Court further ruled that where the post has genuinely ceased to be available for demonstrable organisational reasons, the alternative position must be substantially equivalent not merely in salary but also in grade, status, role, responsibilities, managerial authority and career advancement prospects. The employer must inform the woman why her earlier post is unavailable and provide details of the proposed alternative position, including its grade, remuneration, reporting structure and duties. If she objects, the employer must consider the objection and communicate its decision through a reasoned written communication.
The Court clarified that a woman may seek adjustments to duties, working hours, workplace or an alternate role after maternity leave, but such arrangement cannot be treated as consent to diminution of service conditions or waiver of statutory protection.
In this case, the Court noted that the employer had stated that Bisht's earlier role was given to another employee who had been promoted during her absence. An internal communication discussed assigning her activities merely to "keep her engaged" when she returned.
The Court also examined Bisht's grievance regarding the absence of a functional creche. She asked the employer about the facility in September 2024 and was informed that it was not available at that time. The employer later stated that the facility existed but was not functional on the relevant days. The High Court held that a creche facility which is not functional does not satisfy the statutory obligation under Section 11-A of the Maternity Benefit Act.
The employer argued the petition was not maintainable under Article 226 because it involved a private employment relationship. The High Court rejected the objection, holding that Bisht was seeking enforcement of statutory protection under Section 12. The Court noted that Section 27 of the Act gives its provisions overriding effect over inconsistent terms of an employment contract. It also rejected the argument concerning an alternative statutory remedy, observing the dispute involved fundamental rights and constitutional questions.
The Court directed the employer to pay Bisht Rs 10 lakh in compensation and Rs 1.5 lakh costs within eight weeks. The amount was fixed keeping in view her professional standing and monthly salary of Rs 6 lakh, and the Court noted that the compensation was approximately equivalent to four months' salary. If the amount and costs are not paid within eight weeks, they will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of judgment.
The Court did not pass any order on reinstatement since Bisht had already resigned.
Directions to the Centre
The High Court asked the Centre to frame in six months rules under the Code on Social Security addressing post-maternity reinstatement, lactation support, creche disclosure and grievance redressal timelines in consultation with state governments and industry bodies. The Court said that in doing so, the Centre would consider the suggestions given by its standing counsel Ashish Dixit.
The High Court directed the Union of India to frame rules or schemes under Sections 149, 150 and 154 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 for effective implementation of maternity protections. The framework is to cover pregnancy-related workplace accommodation, protection of role and status, lactation support, creche disclosure and functionality, timelines for grievances, protection against retaliation and designation of authorities. The exercise has to be completed within six months from the judgment.
The Court noted that the relevant rules and schemes under the Code on Social Security, 2020 had not yet been framed.
The Court held that motherhood cannot be permitted to become a basis for unequal treatment or professional disadvantage in the workplace. It observed that any employment practice that penalises a woman for exercising her maternity rights, or effectively forces her to choose between motherhood and career advancement, strikes at the heart of the constitutional protection guaranteed under the right to life and personal liberty.
In the proceedings, the petitioner was represented by advocates Parul Singh, Kunal Kher and Harshita Jain. Advocate Sanjeev Mahajan appeared as Amicus Curiae, assisted by advocate Simran Rao. The Union of India was represented by CGSC Ashish Dixit, along with advocates Umar Hashmi, Gautam Yadav and Iqra Sheikh. Advocates Mumtaz Bhalla and Prapti Allagh appeared for respondent no. 2.