The Delhi High Court has underscored the rights of women returning from maternity leave, affirming that they are entitled to resume their previous roles without any reduction in responsibilities or authority. This ruling was delivered in the case of Rakhi Bisht v. Union of India and Anr, where Justice Sachin Datta emphasized the protections afforded under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and the Code on Social Security, 2020.
Judicial Findings on Maternity Reinstatement
Justice Datta highlighted that any alteration in the duties or status of a woman returning from maternity leave may be seen as discriminatory unless the employer can justify such changes with compelling, legitimate reasons unrelated to maternity. The Court interpreted Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and Section 68(1) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, to mean that protections extend beyond just safeguarding against termination or pay reduction. It includes maintaining the substantive conditions of employment such as job duties, grade, and opportunities for advancement.
“The expression ‘conditions of service’ refers to the core aspects of employment, including the nature and content of her duties, grade, functional status, reporting hierarchy, and supervisory responsibilities. Retaining the same designation and pay is necessary but not sufficient if detrimental changes occur in these aspects,” the Court held.
Case Details and Court Directives
The case arose when Rakhi Bisht, a chartered accountant with 14 years of experience, claimed her employer demoted her to a clerical position upon her return from maternity leave in July 2024. She alleged that her team was reassigned, and she was excluded from managerial meetings, while her male colleagues received promotions. The employer contended that Bisht’s designation and salary remained unchanged, arguing that the dispute was contractual and outside the Court’s jurisdiction.
The High Court, however, ruled that the protections under the Maternity Benefit Act and the Code on Social Security, 2020, are backed by constitutional rights to dignity, equality, and reproductive autonomy under Articles 14, 15, and 21. Therefore, the writ petition was deemed maintainable even against a private employer.
The Court found that Bisht’s position was filled during her leave without informing her, effectively sidelining her. It clarified that retaining an employee’s title and salary alone is insufficient if her authority and career progress are compromised. Consequently, the Court ordered the employer to compensate Bisht with ₹10 lakh and pay ₹1.5 lakh in legal costs within eight weeks.
Implementation and Future Guidelines
The Court also directed the Central government to draft new rules within six months under the Code on Social Security, ensuring post-maternity reinstatement rights, lactation support, creche facilities, and a clear grievance redressal process, in consultation with state governments and industry stakeholders.
The judgment was facilitated by amicus curiae Sanjeev Mahajan, supported by Advocate Simran Rao. Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish K Dixit, along with Advocates Umar Hashmi, Gautam Yadav, and Iqra Sheikh, represented the Union of India. Advocates Mumtaz Bhalla and Prapti Allagh appeared for the private company, while Advocates Parul Singh, Kunal Kher, and Harshita Jain represented the petitioner, Rakhi Bisht.
