Maternity leave is not a privilege—it is a legally recognised right that embodies the principles of dignity, equality, and social justice. However, a recurring legal issue arises when employees under contractual or bond-based obligations take maternity leave: Does such leave count towards the fulfillment of their service bonds?
This question was recently answered with clarity and compassion by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Dr. E. Krithikaa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [W.A.(MD) No. 860 of 2023], decided on 19 June 2025. The court unequivocally held that maternity leave must be counted as part of bond service, reinforcing the paramountcy of constitutional and statutory maternity rights.
Background of the Case
Dr. E. Krithikaa pursued her MS (General Surgery) at Thanjavur Medical College from 2016 to 2019. As per the conditions in the Tamil Nadu Government’s 2016-19 PG admission prospectus, she signed a bond of ₹40 lakhs, undertaking to serve the state government for two years after completion of her postgraduate studies. She also deposited her original educational certificates with the college.
Post-degree, she joined Thittakudi Government Hospital as an Assistant Surgeon on 20 August 2019 and worked for 12 months before availing maternity leave. However, when she sought the return of her educational certificates after her maternity period, authorities refused, citing that she had not completed the mandatory 24-month bond service. This denial led to her filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. She then filed an appeal before the Division Bench.
Issue
The core legal issue before the High Court was:
“Should the period of maternity leave taken by a bond-bound employee be excluded from the mandatory bond tenure?”
Court’s Analysis
1. Maternity Leave and Bond Service: Not Mutually Exclusive
The Court emphasised that maternity leave is a protected statutory right under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Quoting Section 5, it observed that every woman is entitled to maternity benefit payments, and under Section 12, an employer cannot dismiss a woman for availing maternity leave. Further, Section 27 gives the Act overriding power over inconsistent contracts or service rules.
Thus, any contract (including a bond) that indirectly penalises a woman for taking maternity leave by extending her service obligation is void to the extent of that inconsistency.
2. Kavita Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 1 SCC 421
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kavita Yadav, which held that:
- The denial of full maternity benefit by enforcing a contract term during maternity leave is a form of unlawful discharge.
- The Maternity Benefit Act overrides contractual limitations, and a woman on maternity leave must be deemed to be “in service” for the purpose of maternity entitlements.
3. Deepika Singh v. PGIMER (2023) 13 SCC 681
Although focused on leave entitlement under service rules, the judgment emphasised the importance of interpreting maternity laws in harmony with constitutional values, especially Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
4. K. Uma Devi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204)
This ruling reinforced that maternity leave is a constitutional guarantee, and the State has a duty to facilitate its exercise as part of women’s reproductive rights under Article 21.
5. Reproductive Rights under Article 21
The Bench cited the landmark decisions in:
- Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1
- X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, NCT of Delhi (2023) 9 SCC 433
These cases enshrined that reproductive autonomy and the right to dignity during maternity are part of the constitutional right to life.
Key Highlights of the Decision
The Division Bench comprising G.R. Swaminathan, J. and K. Rajasekar, J. stated:
“Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefit and forms a facet of Article 21. The appellant no doubt is not a government employee. She is only obliged to render bond service to the Government of Tamil Nadu for a period of two years. But a regular State government employee is entitled to avail maternity leave for twelve months as per the amended Service Rules.
We are of the view that the appellant is also entitled to the very same treatment applicable to any government employee. The fact that the appellant was only in the service of the government without being a regular employee is irrelevant. When the fundamental right of the appellant is involved, she is entitled to the protective umbrella of not only Article 21 but also Article 14. “
Verdict of the High Court
The Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice K. Rajasekar held that:
- Maternity leave forms a part of the two-year bond period.
- Dr. Krithikaa must be deemed to have served during her maternity leave.
- The denial of the certificate return for this reason violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
The Court poetically quoted John Milton—“They also serve who only stand and wait”—to signify that maternity is a form of service to society and must not be penalised.
The impugned order of the Single Judge was set aside, and the authorities were directed to return her certificates within four weeks.
Broader Implications
A. Statutory Supremacy over Service Contracts
The judgment reaffirms that service bonds cannot override statutory maternity rights. Any clause in a contract that penalizes maternity must yield to the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
B. Equality for Bonded Employees
Importantly, the Court clarified that even if the person is not a regular government employee (like in Dr. Krithikaa’s case), if she is bound by a service bond with the government, she still enjoys constitutional protection under Articles 14 and 21.
C. Guidance for Public and Private Employers
This decision serves as a precedent for other public institutions and potentially private employers who impose bonded service periods after training or recruitment. It implies:
- Maternity leave is not a break in service.
- No additional months can be forced post-maternity as “compensatory service”.
- Withholding educational or professional credentials for this reason is unconstitutional and illegal.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s ruling in Dr. E. Krithikaa v. State of Tamil Nadu marks a significant advancement in upholding women’s constitutional and statutory rights. The Court struck a meaningful balance between enforcing service bond obligations and recognising maternity as a protected and dignified phase of employment, drawing from constitutional values and established Supreme Court jurisprudence.
The judgment affirms that maternity leave is not a disruption but an integral part of a woman’s service journey, grounded in equality and personal liberty. It firmly rejects the outdated notion that women must choose between motherhood and their careers.
In an era where gender justice forms the cornerstone of democratic governance, this verdict sets a strong precedent for employers and institutions. It reinforces that maternity leave is a statutory and constitutional right, not a break in service, and must be counted as part of the bond period—even if the employee is not a regular government servant.