The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the legal protection available to women returning to work after maternity leave, holding that reinstatement must be meaningful and cannot be reduced to merely retaining the same designation and salary. In Rakhi Bisht v. Union of India & Anr., Justice Sachin Datta held that a woman employee returning from maternity leave is entitled to resume her position without adverse changes to her duties, authority, functional status or career prospects.

The judgment is significant for private-sector employers as it clarifies that maternity-related protection extends to the substantive conditions of employment, and not merely protection against termination or reduction in remuneration.

Background of the Case

Rakhi Bisht, a Chartered Accountant with approximately 14 years of professional experience, approached the Delhi High Court after returning from maternity leave in July 2024.

According to her case, although she was allowed to continue with the same designation and salary, her role had substantially changed. Her reporting team had allegedly been taken away, she was excluded from managerial meetings, and she was assigned work of a largely clerical nature.

At the same time, male colleagues were allegedly promoted to the position of Senior Manager.

Bisht contended that these changes effectively diminished her professional status and career prospects despite there being no formal reduction in her designation or remuneration.

The employer disputed these allegations and argued that there had been no demotion. It pointed out that Bisht continued to receive the same salary, designation and annual increment.

The company also raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the dispute arose out of a private employment contract and therefore could not ordinarily be examined under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Key Issue Before the Court

The principal question before the Court was whether the protection afforded to a woman under maternity legislation extends beyond termination or reduction in salary to situations where an employee’s duties, authority, responsibilities and career progression are adversely affected after returning from maternity leave.

The Court was also required to consider whether such statutory and constitutional protections could be enforced against a private employer through a writ petition.

Delhi High Court’s Findings

The High Court rejected a narrow interpretation of maternity protection.

It held that the expression “conditions of service” cannot be confined merely to an employee’s designation or remuneration. It includes the substantive features of employment, such as:

• the nature and content of duties;
• grade and functional status;
• reporting hierarchy;
• supervisory responsibilities;
• participation in managerial functions; and
• consideration for appraisal and promotion.

The Court observed that retaining an employee’s designation and remuneration is necessary but not by itself sufficient where other important aspects of employment have been adversely altered.

Thus, an employer cannot avoid the statutory protection simply by maintaining the employee’s job title and salary while substantially reducing her responsibilities or professional authority.

Maternity Protection Extends Beyond Termination

The Court examined the protections contained in Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and Section 68(1) of the Code on Social Security, 2020.

These provisions prohibit an employer from disadvantaging a woman on account of her absence from work during protected maternity leave.

The High Court held that such protection must be understood in a substantive manner. Otherwise, an employer could technically retain an employee’s salary and designation while placing her in a significantly inferior professional position, thereby achieving indirectly what maternity law prohibits directly.

Accordingly, an adverse reassignment following maternity leave may attract scrutiny where it results in a reduction in responsibilities, authority, status or career opportunities.

The Court further held that where such reassignment is shown, the employer would need to establish compelling and bona fide reasons unrelated to the employee’s maternity leave.

Constitutional Dimensions of Maternity Protection

An important aspect of the judgment was the Court’s recognition that maternity-related workplace protections are not merely contractual or statutory rights.

The Court linked these protections to the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The judgment emphasised the constitutional values of:

• equality;
• dignity;
• non-discrimination; and
• reproductive autonomy.

By placing maternity protection within this constitutional framework, the Court recognised that pregnancy and maternity cannot become grounds for diminishing a woman’s professional standing.

Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Private Employer

The private employer had argued that the dispute concerned a private contract of employment and therefore could not ordinarily be challenged through a writ petition.

The High Court, however, held that the matter could be examined under its writ jurisdiction because the statutory protections involved were closely connected with constitutional guarantees and public law obligations.

The Court’s approach therefore demonstrates that certain statutory employment protections, particularly those concerning maternity and gender equality, can acquire a public law dimension even in the context of private employment.

This is particularly relevant because a significant portion of India’s workforce is employed in the private sector.

Court’s Observation Regarding the Petitioner’s Role

After examining the circumstances, the Court found that the position held by Bisht had been filled during her maternity leave without informing her.

The Court further observed that she was effectively treated as “spare capacity”, being placed wherever another colleague could accommodate her.

In the Court’s assessment, such treatment could not be reconciled with the protection afforded to an employee returning from maternity leave.

The judgment therefore makes clear that an employer cannot treat maternity leave as an opportunity to reorganise an employee’s position to her detriment without legitimate and maternity-independent justification.

Compensation and Costs

Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the Delhi High Court directed the employer to pay:

• ₹10 lakh as compensation, and
• ₹1.5 lakh towards costs

within a period of eight weeks.

The monetary relief underscores that discriminatory or disadvantageous treatment following maternity leave may result not merely in directions for corrective action but also in substantial financial consequences for the employer.

Directions to the Central Government

The Court also issued broader directions concerning implementation of maternity-related workplace protections.

The Central Government was directed to frame appropriate rules within six months under the Code on Social Security, 2020, addressing matters including:

1. Post-maternity reinstatement;
2. Lactation support;
3. Creche-related disclosures; and
4. Timelines for grievance redressal.

The Court directed that the process be undertaken in consultation with State Governments and relevant industry bodies.

These directions indicate the Court’s recognition that statutory maternity protections require effective implementation mechanisms in addition to substantive rights.

What the Judgment Means for Employers

The judgment carries important implications for employers, particularly organisations with structured managerial hierarchies.

An employer may not necessarily comply with maternity protections merely by ensuring that an employee:

• retains the same designation;
• receives the same salary; or
• receives an annual increment.

The employer must also consider whether the employee has been restored to a position substantially comparable to the one she occupied before maternity leave.

Changes affecting reporting relationships, managerial responsibilities, decision-making authority, professional exposure or promotion prospects may potentially amount to adverse treatment if they are connected to maternity.

Employers should therefore ensure that any organisational restructuring affecting an employee returning from maternity leave is supported by objective, documented and bona fide reasons unrelated to maternity.

Significance for Women Employees

For women employees, the judgment provides an important clarification that returning from maternity leave does not mean returning to a diminished professional role.

The right protected by maternity legislation is not simply the right to receive a salary after leave. It includes the ability to resume one’s professional career without being disadvantaged because of maternity.

The judgment consequently strengthens the principle that motherhood should not operate as a career penalty.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Rakhi Bisht v. Union of India & Anr. represents an important development in Indian employment and maternity jurisprudence.

The Court has drawn a clear distinction between formal reinstatement and substantive reinstatement. Keeping an employee’s designation and salary unchanged may satisfy only part of an employer’s obligation. If her authority, responsibilities, functional status or career prospects are substantially diminished because of maternity leave, the protection afforded by maternity law may still be violated.

The judgment reinforces the constitutional principle that maternity-related protections are integral to equality, dignity and reproductive autonomy.

For employers, the decision serves as a reminder that post-maternity workplace decisions must be carefully evaluated and supported by legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. For women employees, it affirms that returning from maternity leave should mean returning to their professional role—not merely retaining their job title.