CASE ANALYSIS: MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT

A Synopsis of:
Dr. Ankita Baidya vs Union Of India & Ors
Summary of Maternity Act:

The Maternity Benefit Act, acts a protection of the employment for women during the time

of her maternity and entitles her to a set of maternity benefit, that is, fully paid absence

from work to take care of her new born child. The act is applicable to all establishments

wherein 10 or more employees are employed. The Act is applicable to all establishments,

irrespective of factories, mines, plantations, Government establishments, shops. The

Central Government may notify establishments under the relevant applicable legislations,

or any other establishment as. According to the Act, to be eligible for maternity benefit, a

woman must have been worked with the employer as an employee in the establishment

for a period of at least 80 days in the past 12 months. However this clause is not applicable

for the state of Assam. The new Maternity Benefit Amendment Act has increased the

duration of paid maternity leave available for pregnant women employees from the

existing 12 weeks to 26 weeks. Under the Maternity Benefit Amendment Act, this benefit

could be availed by a pregnant women for a period extending up to a maximum of 8 weeks

before the expected delivery date and the remaining time can be availed postnatal. For

women who are expecting even after having 2 live children, the duration of paid maternity

leave shall be 12 weeks (i.e., 6 weeks pre and 6 weeks post expected date of delivery).

Maternity leave of 12 weeks will be available to mothers adopting a child below the age

of three months from the date of adoption as well as to the commissioning mothers. The

new Maternity Benefit Amendment Act has also included a provision relating to work from

home for new mothers, which may be exercised after the expiry of the 26 weeks' of leave

period. However this is at the discretion of the employer. The new Maternity Benefit

Amendment Act makes crèche facility mandatory for every establishment employing 50

1
or more employees. Women employees would be permitted to visit the crèche 4 times

during the day for a period of 15 minutes each.

Synopsis of the case, Dr Ankita Baidya vs Union of India & Ors

The petitioner Dr. Ankita Baidya was a senior resident doctor at AIIMS Delhi having

completed her MBBS and MD course from AIIMS Delhi. Dr. Baidya is being represented

by Mr. S.K Dubey. AIIMS decided to open a new course for DM as Infectious diseases to

which Dr. Baidya decided to apply to. She got a confirmation to enroll in the course after

passing the subsequent entrance exam and hence was positioned as senior resident DM

in the hospital.

As per the prospectus of the course, AIIMS Delhi provided 90 days of leave over the 3

years of the course. Extending the course beyond 90 days will leave for an extension of

the registration of the exam by a term. The leaves for the course were as follows:

1st year: 24 days; 2nd year: 30 days; 3rd year: 36 days.

Dr. Ankita chanced to become pregnant during the course of her study of DM Infectious

Disease at AIIMS Delhi, for which she applied for maternity leave for 180 days or 6

months. The leave request was subsequently approved by the Dean, DM Infectious

Disease AIIMS, Delhi. However, it extended her tenure of course by 6 months, hence

instead of her appearing for the exam in December 2018 she has to now appear in May

2019. Dr. Ankita reported back to work in September 2019 and completed and submitted

2
her thesis three months before the examinations scheduled for December 2018. The

thesis was also approved by her mentor but was however barred from the exams to be

held on December 2018 by the institute citing the clause 7 of the prospectus which stated

that an extension of leave beyond 90 days over the period of three years shall result in

extension of the registration of the exam by a term.

Hence Dr. Ankita approached the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 to seek a writ of

mandamus to AIIMS Delhi to allow her to appear for the examination scheduled for

December 2018.

AIIMS Delhi was represented by Mr. Vibhor Garg in the court.

Mr. Dubey cited the approach of AIIMS Delhi to be a clear violation of the Maternity Benefit

Act. He stated that according to the act, the act of AIIMS Delhi to extend the term of Dr.

Ankita was disadvantageous to her, which is against the maternity benefit act. He further

elaborated on the very clause of the prospectus which was meant guiding the leave policy.

The clause was meant for junior resident doctors, however, his client Dr. Ankita was a

senior resident doctor and hence did not apply to her. Mr. Garg was unable to prove his

point that the same clause was approved to apply to senior resident doctors in a meeting

held at AIIMS Delhi. Further, Mr. Dubey also elaborated on the meaning of the clause

which meant that had Dr. Ankita would have applied for a maternity leave of 36 days and

then would have extended the leave, then the clause would have stood true to its

meaning. But 36 days of leave is not prescribed in the maternity benefit act and Dr. Ankita

has applied for 180 days of leave and has not asked for an extension. Hence the clause

7 of the prospectus of AIIMS Delhi which was supposed to be the guiding principle cannot

stand true in the case of Dr. Ankita. The court agreed to the definition of the extension of

3
leave as suggested by Mr. Dubey and hence disagreed with Mr. Garg to consider the

case based on clause 7 of the prospectus of AIIMS Delhi. Mr. Garg further pointed out to

the fact that Dr. Ankita knew the fact that she would have to serve the extra term before

going for the leave. The counsel for Dr. Ankita, Mr. Dubey pointed out that nowhere in the

letter addressed to Dr. Ankita did mention an explicit date of May 2019 as her

examination, when she has very clearly mentioned her leave period to be of 180 days.

Further, the court also accepted the fact that Dr. Ankita did not have a chance to not to

go for leave, hence the matter of fact that the extension was mentioned in the approval

letter by Dean to r Ankita will not hold. Mr. Garg also argued for the fact that Dr. Ankita

has approached the court very late and had knowingly done so, hence the case against

her client, AIIMS Delhi should be quashed. However, the court took to notice that she has

approached the court as soon as she discovered the fact of not being allowed for the

examination. She joined her services back in September 2018 and then tried to negotiate

her issues with the institute, failing which she approached the court to seek relief in this

matter. Hence it would be wrong to say that Dr. Ankita knowingly delayed her application

to the court and hence her appeal to the court under Article 226 would stand good.

The Delhi High Court took into consideration several other cases to decide upon the

credentials of this case. The Delhi High Court concluded that Dr. Ankita’s maternity leave

should be considered as a continuity of service and would not qualify to be an extension

of leave as specified under clause 7 of the prospectus of AIIMS Delhi, moreover the

learned counsel of AIIMS Delhi, failed to prove that it was meant for senior resident doctor.

The court also deliberated on the fact that women candidates pursuing the DM and MD

course and the designate of senior doctors are likely to avail maternity leave and the

4
clauses for such leaves were not present in the prospectus of such courses of the

institute.

Delhi High Court agreed to issue a writ to AIIMS Delhi to allow Dr. Ankita to write for the

exams scheduled for December 2018 instead of May 2019 for the case of maternity leave.

However, the Delhi High Court refused to pass any writ for appearing the examination in

December 2018 apart from the case of maternity leave as such will be decided by the

institute based on completion of pre-requites of the course by Dr. Ankita Baiday as per

the rules of the institute. The court also ordered for no costs to the case.