4 min readNew DelhiMar 31, 2026 08:00 PM IST
First published on: Mar 31, 2026 at 08:00 PM IST
The Orissa High Court recently set aside an order rejecting a university faculty member’s request for maternity leave on the ground that she was a temporary employee, observing that the motherhood of a woman employee does not depend upon the nature of her employment.
Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra remanded the matter to the university concerned to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass a necessary order within four weeks.
“The motherhood of the female employee does not depend upon the nature of her employment, i.e., whether she is a permanent employee or a temporary/contractual employee. Granting such relief to the permanent employees and refusal thereof to the temporary/contractual employees will create discrimination among the female employees,” the March 25 order noted.
Justice AK Mohapatra quashed the order rejecting grant of maternity leave.
‘Unsustainable in law’
- On a careful examination of the background facts, this court found the ground of rejection to be very strange, it observes that the prayer of the petitioner for maternity leave was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a temporary employee.
- It appears that the opposite parties have proceeded on the footing that the temporary employees do not require maternity leave and that it is only the right of the regular employees to get maternity leave.
- The policy decision of the government so far, the grant of maternity leave to female employees, has to be uniform irrespective of the nature of the engagement.
- On a critical analysis of the impugned order, this court found that although there was a specific direction by this court in the earlier writ application to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment in State of Odisha and another v Anindita Mishra case.
- However, the opposite parties have neither referred to nor discussed the aforesaid judgments in the impugned order.
- In view of the aforesaid factual as well as legal analysis, this court is of the view that the impugned rejection order is unsustainable in law.
- Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the opposite parties to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass a necessary consequential order within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.
Maternity leave plea
- The petitioner, who is a guest faculty member at a university, had approached the court seeking directions to quash the order rejecting her request for maternity leave.
- She prayed for directions to the university to extend all the benefits, including financial benefits, in favour of the petitioner during her maternity.
- The counsel for the petitioner contended that although the petitioner had initially applied for maternity leave, no decision was taken, compelling her to approach the high court earlier, which was disposed of with a direction to the university to consider her representation.
- Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation; however, the same was again rejected by the impugned order.
- It was further contended that the rejection was based on the erroneous ground that employees engaged in temporary or short-term schemes are not entitled to maternity leave.
- The counsel for the opposite parties argued that, in terms of the Government of Odisha’s Office Memorandum of 2016, contractual employees are not entitled to maternity leave, and therefore, no illegality had been committed by the university in rejecting the petitioner’s claim.
Orissa High Court said that the relief to the permanent employees and refusal to the temporary employees will create discrimination. (Image generated using AI) 
Justice AK Mohapatra quashed the order rejecting grant of maternity leave.
Share
