Madhya Pradesh High Court relaxes eighty day threshold for maternity benefits in State government employment

At a glance

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Court) in a recent case of Dr. Priti Saket v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others has held that the statutory requirement of minimum 80 days’ service for availing maternity benefits cannot be applied rigidly in the context of state government employment.
• Emphasising the welfare character of maternity legislation in India, the Court ruled that State government establishments must prioritise employee health, dignity and social welfare over mechanical eligibility thresholds.
• The Court allowed maternity benefits to a contractual government employee despite non‑completion of the 80‑day requirement under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 (now subsumed under the Code on Social Security, 2020 (CSS 2020).
• Crucially, the judgment draws a clear distinction between State and private sector employment, confirming that the 80‑day threshold continues to apply more strictly in private establishments.
• While rooted in public sector welfare obligations, the decision signals judicial resistance to denial of maternity benefits purely on technical grounds, particularly where employment is substantively continuous.

In a notable judgment, the Court has re‑examined the eighty‑day eligibility requirement for maternity benefits and held that it cannot be rigidly enforced in the context of State government employment. The Court ruled that government establishments may not deny maternity benefits to women employees solely on the basis of non‑completion of the statutory qualifying period, having regard to the State’s overarching welfare obligations.

The case concerned a contractual guest faculty member engaged by a government college, whose initially sanctioned paid maternity leave was later withdrawn on the ground that she had not completed mandatory 80 days of service in the preceding 12 months, as required under section 5(2) of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 (corresponding to section 60(2) of CSS 2020). Setting aside the decision of government college, the Court emphasised that maternity legislation is beneficial in nature and must be interpreted in a manner that advances its object of protecting women’s health and dignity.

Importantly, the Court clarified that this relaxation of the eligibility threshold is confined to State government establishments. It expressly underscored that private sector employers remain entitled to rely on the statutory requirement of 80 days’ service, and that the judgment does not automatically dilute this threshold in non‑government employment.

At the same time, the Court’s reasoning reflects a broader judicial trend against mechanical or purely technical denial of maternity benefits, particularly where service is substantively continuous. Drawing contrast with earlier decisions that insisted on strict compliance, the judgment reinforces that eligibility assessments must engage with the realities of employment rather than formal interruptions or rigid numerical benchmarks.

For private employers, while the eighty‑day rule continues to apply, the decision serves as a reminder that courts may scrutinise artificial breaks, contractual structuring and record‑keeping where maternity entitlements are at stake. Clear documentation and principled application of eligibility criteria remain critical to withstand challenge.