The Rajasthan High Court has determined that the practice of providing only 90 days of maternity leave to female employees of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), as stipulated by Regulation 74 of the RSRTC Employees Service Regulations, 1965, instead of the 180 days required by the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (as amended in 2017), constitutes discrimination and infringes upon the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The single headed bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand recommended that the RSRTC amend Regulation 74 of the 1965 Regulations to extend maternity leave from 90 days to 180 days.

Additionally, the Court issued a general mandamus to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, directing it to instruct all unrecognized and private sectors to revise their policies to ensure 180 days of maternity leave for female employees.

''The respondent-RSRTC is trying to take shelter of Regulation 74 of the Regulations of 1965. Such Regulation has become an ancient provision, in view of the subsequent Acts of the Central and the State Governments, whereby the ceiling limit of Maternity Leave has been increased to 180 days and Section 5 of the Act of 1961 has also been amended in the year 2017.''

''Hence, under these changed circumstances, all female employees are entitled to get the benefit of Maternity Leave, in terms of the 2017 amendment. The Regulation of 1965 do not overrule the amended provisions of the Maternity Benefits (Amendment) Act, 2017. The Regulation 74 of the Regulations of 1965 is liable to be amended now, as the same is the need of hour.”

The Court was considering a petition from a pregnant woman employed as a conductor with RSRTC, who sought a directive for the department to extend her maternity leave from 90 days to 180 days.

The Court emphasized the critical significance of the early years of parenthood for both mother and child, during which adequate rest, medical care, and emotional support are essential. It noted that maternity leave is not merely a benefit but a fundamental right that addresses women's essential needs.

“The care that Indian mothers receive before and after they have a child, is ingrained in our Indian culture. Therefore, it makes sense to have the same care, even at the workplace. This is possible only when proper and adequate Maternity Leave is allowed.”

The Court referenced the Supreme Court case of *Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) & Anr.* and observed that this case extended the equitable right to maternity benefits under the 1961 Act to all female employees, both in the organized and unorganized sectors, regardless of the nature of their employment.

In that case, the Supreme Court invoked the Doctrine of Social Justice and Article 11 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women to direct the Delhi Municipal Corporation to extend the benefits of the 1961 Act to its muster-roll women employees in addition to its regular employees. The Court held that:

The Court also referenced *Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India*, where maternity relief was affirmed as a fundamental right under Article 21. Additionally, in *Chanda Keswani v. State of Rajasthan*, the Rajasthan High Court extended the right to life to encompass not only the right of motherhood but also the child’s right to receive love, affection, and full care and attention.

In light of these cases, the Court stated that maternity benefits are not solely derived from statutory rights or contractual agreements but are fundamental and integral to a woman's identity and dignity. The Court further held that any attempt to obstruct a woman's fundamental right to bear a child infringes upon her constitutional rights and contradicts the principles of social justice.

Thus, the Court ruled that providing only 90 days of maternity leave to RSRTC women employees was discriminatory. By limiting the duration of maternity leave, the department was effectively denying these employees equal opportunity and infringing upon their maternity rights.

Consequently, the petition was granted, and RSRTC was advised to amend Regulation 74 of the 1965 Regulations. Additionally, a general mandamus was issued to the Government of India, directing it to instruct all unrecognized and private sectors to update their provisions to comply with the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.

Case Title: Minakshi Chaudhary v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.