3 min readMumbaiUpdated: Feb 27, 2026 09:59 PM IST
The Bombay High Court on Friday set aside KEM Hospital’s decision denying maternity benefits to a contractual doctor, observing that authorities must be “more sensitive” to deserving employees and ensure that a working woman does not have to compromise between her career and caregiving.
A division bench of Justices Riyaz I Chagla and Advait M Sethna allowed a petition filed by anaesthesiologist Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis, who was employed on a contractual basis as an Assistant Professor (Anaesthesiology) at Seth G S Medical College and KEM Hospital. She had challenged an October 2024 communication rejecting her claim for maternity leave benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
The hospital had stated that Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) service rules did not apply to her as she was a contractual employee and that the benefits were therefore unavailable.
The court rejected the stand, noting that the “objective of maternity benefits is to protect the dignity of motherhood” and provide financial security to the woman and the child during the period she is unable to work.
“In today’s day and age, more and more women are joining the workforce. In this scenario, it is important to ensure that a woman striving for self-sufficiency and economic independence does not have to compromise on her role as a care giver to her child,” the bench noted.
The court also expressed disapproval over what it termed a complete change in the authorities’ stand after they had earlier (June, 2025) agreed in principle to process her claim. “We see no rationale, much less justification, to sustain the impugned communication merely on the ground that she is a contractual employee and these are policy matters,” the bench observed.
Advocate Subit Chakrabarti for Karkhanis submitted that she had been working at KEM Hospital since January 2022, with her contract renewed annually. After her latest renewal in July 2024, she completed the statutory requirement of 80 days of work within the preceding 12 months and applied for maternity leave of six months in October 2024. Her request was rejected.
Story continues below this ad
She delivered her child in November 2024 and continued to seek statutory benefits. After attempting to resume on April 7, 2025, she resigned the next day, citing the absence of crèche facilities, fixed nursing breaks and certainty of working hours.
Advocate Chakrabarti argued that she had fulfilled all eligibility criteria under the Act and was unlawfully denied her entitlement. The BMC and hospital opposed the plea, calling it a policy matter not warranting court interference. Allowing the petition, the High Court directed the authorities to release the maternity benefits to her within six weeks.
