Justice Harisankar V. Menon delivered the judgment while allowing two writ petitions filed by Special Educators (Secondary) engaged on contract under Samagra Shiksha Kerala, who had sought medical leave following hysterectomy surgeries.

The petitioners had been working under the project since 2011 and 2007 respectively and were advised prolonged rest after surgery. Their leave applications, supported by discharge summaries and medical certificates, were rejected by the Government on the ground that the Government Order extending maternity leave benefits to contractual employees covered only Rules 100 and 101 of Part I KSR, and not Rule 101A dealing with hysterectomy leave.

The Court examined whether contractual women employees, who had already been granted the benefits of maternity leave under Rules 100 and 101 through a Government Order dated February 4, 2021, could be denied leave available under Rule 101A solely because that provision was not specifically mentioned in the Government Order.

The Court observed that the Government's distinction between maternity-related leave under Rules 100 and 101 and hysterectomy leave under Rule 101A lacked any rational basis. The Court noted that it had earlier questioned the Government on why the benefit extended to contractual employees under Rules 100 and 101 could not similarly apply to Rule 101A, observing that there appeared to be no rhyme or reason for such exclusion.

The Court relied on the earlier decision in Rakhi P.V. v. State of Kerala (2018 (2) KLT 88), where the High Court had held that contractual women employees working under State-funded projects are entitled to the same maternity leave benefits as regular employees. That decision recognised maternity benefits as welfare legislation intended to secure equal opportunities for women in public employment and held that contractual status alone could not justify discrimination.

The Court held that once the Government had consciously extended the benefits of Rules 100 and 101 to contractual employees, there was no valid justification for withholding the benefit under Rule 101A.

“In my opinion, when the afore benefits are being extended as regards the claim under Rules 100 and 101 to those female officers appointed on contract basis, there is no reason for not extending the very same benefits as regards the claim under Rule 101A.” Court observed.

The Court observed that Rule 101 deals with leave following miscarriage or abortion, while Rule 101A provides leave for hysterectomy, and both provisions form part of the same beneficial statutory scheme. Denying one while granting the other was held to be unjustified.

“The provisions under Rule 101 provide for extending leave in cases of miscarriage including abortion. The provisions in Rule 101A at the same time, extend leave in case of hysterectomy. Therefore, when the benefit under Rule 101 is being extended to the contractual employees pursuant to Ext.P8 Government Order, there is no reason for denying the benefits under Rule 101A to contractual employees.” Court added.

The Court thus held that the denial of the leave would defeat the object of the welfare legislation and directed the State government to reconsider the petitioner's leave application within 16 weeks.

Case Title: N v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case

Case No: WP(C) 22702/ 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 429

Counsel for Petitioner: Dhanya P. Ashokan (Sr.), M.R. Venugopal, S. Muhammad Alikhan

Counsel for Respondent: Balaprasanna (GP)

Click Here To Read/Download Order