For many women, pregnancy is not just a personal milestone. It also brings practical worries. Income, job continuity, and medical costs often come into question. These worries are sharper for women working on temporary or daily-wage roles. In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court addressed this issue directly. The court held that maternity benefits cannot be denied based on employment status. The decision is important for women who depend on maternity health insurance alongside legal benefits, and for those who rely on individual health insurance when employer support is limited.
The case that led to the ruling
The matter before the court involved a woman working as a temporary assistant professor in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department of a government medical college in Kolhapur. Her appointment was labelled temporary. However, she had been working continuously since September 2018.
Her service was renewed again and again. Each renewal came with a short break on paper. These breaks did not reflect her actual work. She continued in the same role and performed the same duties throughout.
In 2021, when she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, she applied for maternity leave. She requested leave for 131 days. The college acknowledged her leave request. However, it treated the entire period as unpaid leave.
The institution also refused to pay maternity benefits, raising serious questions around employee welfare, financial security, and the broader relevance of maternity health insurance for working women in such situations. The amount involved was more than Rs. 4.36 lakh.
Why the benefits were denied
The medical college argued that maternity benefits were not applicable to temporary staff. It said that since her appointment was renewed periodically, she did not meet the eligibility conditions under the Maternity Benefit Act.
The college relied on the technical breaks between her contracts. According to its position, these breaks meant her service was not continuous.
This reasoning became the central issue before the High Court.
How the court viewed the situation
The Bombay High Court rejected the employer’s argument. It focused on the reality of the woman’s service, not the paperwork.
The court noted that she had worked continuously for years. The short breaks were described as technical and administrative. They were not genuine breaks in employment.
The court made it clear that such artificial interruptions cannot be used to deny statutory benefits. Allowing this, it said, would defeat the purpose of maternity protection laws.
The judgment stressed that legal rights cannot depend on how contracts are drafted.
What the law requires
The court examined the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. It clarified that the Act does not restrict maternity benefits to permanent employees.
What matters is whether the woman meets the conditions laid down in the law. These conditions include continuity of service and pregnancy. The type of appointment does not decide eligibility.
The court stated clearly that women working on temporary, contractual, or daily-wage terms are covered under the Act if they meet these conditions.
The intent of the law, the court said, is to protect women during pregnancy and early motherhood. That protection cannot be weakened by employment labels.
The court’s directions
The High Court allowed the woman’s petition. It directed the authorities to release the full maternity benefit amount within four weeks.
The court also ruled that if payment was delayed beyond this period, interest would apply. The interest rate was set at nine per cent per annum until the amount was paid.
The direction left little room for delay or interpretation.
Why this ruling matters for working women
This judgment affects many women beyond the individual case. A large number of women in India work on temporary contracts or daily wages. This is common in education, healthcare, and public institutions.
For years, maternity benefits for such workers have been uncertain. Many women have had to rely on employer discretion rather than clear legal rights.
The ruling changes that position. It confirms that maternity benefits are a right under the law. They are not dependent on job security or permanent status.
For women working in insecure roles, this clarity matters. Pregnancy already brings physical and emotional changes. Financial uncertainty adds to the stress.
The link with healthcare costs
Maternity benefits protect income during leave. They do not always cover medical expenses fully. Pregnancy and childbirth can involve hospital stays, tests, and follow-up care.
This is where maternity health insurance becomes important. Such policies help cover hospitalisation and treatment costs.
Women working in temporary roles may not have employer-provided health cover. In these cases, individual health insurance becomes a key safeguard. It ensures continuity of medical cover even when employment terms change.
Legal maternity benefits and health insurance serve different purposes. Together, they provide more complete protection.
What employers may need to rethink
The ruling sends a clear message to employers. Contract structures and technical breaks cannot be used to avoid statutory obligations.
Courts are likely to examine the substance of employment rather than formal labels. Employers, especially public institutions, may need to review how appointments are structured.
Repeated renewals with artificial breaks may no longer stand scrutiny when statutory benefits are involved.
A broader shift in approach
The judgment reflects a broader shift in how courts view labour protections. Welfare laws are meant to protect workers, not to be bypassed through administrative design.
For women, this is especially important. Pregnancy is a biological reality, not a contractual event. Laws recognise this and aim to provide stability during a vulnerable period.
The court’s ruling aligns with this understanding.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s decision makes it clear that you can’t deny maternity benefits just because you work part-time or for a daily wage. The ruling gives women who are pregnant and working in jobs that aren’t certain a much-needed sense of direction. When you have the right maternity health insurance and reliable individual health insurance, the judgment strengthens both your legal rights and your financial security during pregnancy.
