Motherhood Cannot Become Grounds For Economic Disadvantage: J&K&L High Court Upholds Maternity Leave Period As Continuous Service

The Court held that subtracting the period of maternity leave from the contractual tenure for determining regularisation eligibility penalizes motherhood and violates the constitutional mandate of gender justice.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while observing that “the sole objective of such interpretation must be to advance the cause of the female employee, not to orchestrate her disentitlement,” held that “categorizing sanctioned maternity leave as a break in service to deny regularisation benefits amounts to systemic gender discrimination, effectively penalizing motherhood.”

The Court was hearing two connected LPA's filed by the J&K Bank Ltd. challenging a common judgment passed by the Writ Court in terms of which it had which had allowed the petitions of four female Banking Associates seeking benefits of a particular Circular.

Background:

The respondents were appointed as Banking Associates on contractual basis for a period of two years, after which they were to be regularised subject to successful work assessment. During their contractual tenure, they availed maternity leave. The Bank sanctioned the leave but extended their contractual term by the corresponding period, with the stipulation that the leave period would not count towards the two-year continuous service required for regularisation.

Consequently, while their peers who joined alongside them were regularised at the expiry of two years, the respondents were regularised later. This placed them outside the cut-off date for benefits under Circular No.752 dated 12.03.2021, which provided for Adjustment Pay and other benefits only to employees regularised as on 31.12.2020. The respondents challenged their regularisation orders before the Writ Court, which allowed their petitions and directed the Bank to treat the maternity leave period as continuous service and extend all benefits of the Circular retrospectively. Aggrieved, the Bank filed the present intra-court appeals.

Court's Observation:

The Court noted that it was undisputed that the respondents were found suitable for regularisation and were ultimately regularised. The sole reason for their delayed regularisation was the exclusion of the maternity leave period. The Court observed,

“... It is solely due to the exclusion of the maternity leave period, and the attendant extension of their contracts, that their regularisation fell after the crucial cut-off date of 31.12.2020. Consequently, the respondents were subjected to a distinct disadvantage, effectively penalizing them and depriving them of the benefits under the aforementioned Circular, a fate their male counterparts or female counterparts without children did not suffer.”

The Court referred to Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which authorizes the State to enact special measures for women and children, and Article 42, which directs the State to ensure just and humane working conditions alongside maternity relief. The Court noted that the Bank had incorporated maternity protections into its service regulations, with Clause 30 of the Bipartite Settlement granting maternity leave to regular female employees.

Relying upon Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) (2000) 3 SCC 224 , the Court observed,

“... To become a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realise the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in performing her duties at the workplace.”

The Court also cited Deepika Singh v. PGIMER, Chandigarh (2023) 13 SCC 681 , wherein the Supreme Court held that the grant of maternity leave is intended to facilitate the continuance of women in the workplace and that no employer can perceive childbirth as detracting from the purpose of employment.

The Court rejected the Bank's submission that the respondents were precluded from challenging their regularisation dates by the doctrine of acquiescence. The Court held,

“... While acquiescence operates as an equitable shield, it cannot be weaponized to defeat fundamental rights; where a constitutional infraction is manifest, equity must make way for the rule of law.”

The Court further relied upon Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026 INSC 99) , wherein the Supreme Court held that the State being a model employer is saddled with a heightened obligation to act with fairness, and that fundamental rights are incapable of waiver. The Court observed,

“... The appellant-Bank, a banking behemoth whose vast footprint extends across the length and breadth of India, has regrettably chosen to flex its institutional muscles against its female employees. Rather than accommodating and honoring their motherhood, the Bank has subjected them to hostile discrimination vis-à-vis their peers. Such an overbearing approach by an institution of this stature is entirely impermissible and cannot be countenanced in law.”

In view of these observations the Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the judgment of the learned Writ Court. The Bank was directed to treat the maternity leave period as continuous service and extend all benefits of the Circular, including revised pay scale and adjustment pay, to the respondents with retrospective effect.

Case Title: Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Tanu Gupta & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment