Woman returning after maternity leave has right to resume duty without change in role, authority: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court recently held that a woman employee of a private company returning from maternity leave is entitled to be reinstated in the same position she held before proceeding on leave [Rakhi Bisht v. Union of India and Anr]..Justice Sachin Datta said that any reassignment causing a change in her responsibilities, authority or status will be presumed discriminatory unless the employer can show compelling, bona fide reasons unconnected to maternity.The Court reasoned that the prohibitions contained in Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and Section 68(1) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 against disadvantaging a woman during protected maternity leave extends beyond termination or reduction in salary.“The expression “conditions of service” extends to the substantive incidents of employment, including the nature and content of the duties entrusted to her, her grade and functional status, reporting hierarchy, supervisory responsibilities, and her entitlement to be considered for appraisal and promotion. Retention of the same designation and remuneration is, therefore, necessary but not by itself sufficient if changes are brought about in respect of the aforesaid attributes, to her detriment.”The Court also directed the Central government to frame rules within 6 months under the Code on Social Security addressing post-maternity reinstatement, lactation support, creche disclosure and grievance redressal timelines, in consultation with State governments and industry bodies..Justice Datta rendered these findings while dealing with plea filed by Rakhi Bisht, a chartered accountant (CA) with about 14 years of experience. Bisht had approached the Court alleging that her private sector employer sidelined her to a lower, largely clerical role after she returned from maternity leave in July 2024. The employer allegedly stripped her of her reporting team and left her out of managerial meetings even as her male colleagues were promoted to Senior Manager.However, the company contested the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the dispute arose from a private contract of employment and fell outside writ jurisdiction of the Court. It denied any demotion, pointing out that Bisht's designation, salary and even an annual increment remained unchanged..After considering the case, the High Court held that protections under the Maternity Benefit Act and the Code on Social Security, 2020 are rooted in constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality and reproductive autonomy under Articles 14, 15 and 21, making the writ petition maintainable even against a private employer. It found that Bisht's post had been filled during her leave without any intimation to her and that she was effectively treated as "spare capacity" to be parked wherever a colleague could accommodate her.The Court clarified that retaining an employee's designation and pay is "necessary but not by itself sufficient" if her duties, authority and career prospects are diminished. Therefore, it directed the employer to pay Bisht ₹10 lakh in compensation and ₹1.5 lakh in costs within 8 weeks.In the end, the Court recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by amicus curiae Sanjeev Mahajan and Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish K Dixit. .Advocates Parul Singh, Kunal Kher and Harshita Jain appeared for petitioner Rakhi Bisht. Advocate Sanjeev Mahajan acted as amicus curiae. He was assisted by Advocate Simran Rao. Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit along with Advocates Umar Hashmi, Gautam Yadav and Iqra Sheikh appeared for the Union of India. Advocates Mumtaz Bhalla and Prapti Allagh represented the private company. .[Read Judgment]