Taking maternity leave should never mean coming back to a workplace where a woman has lost the position, authority or career opportunities she worked hard to build.
The Delhi High Court has made this clear in a significant ruling, holding that the protection given to women during maternity leave extends far beyond simply keeping their jobs and salaries intact. A woman returning from maternity leave should ordinarily be restored to the same position, with the same responsibilities, professional status and opportunities for career advancement.
The court also directed the Centre to consider framing rules or a scheme within six months to strengthen safeguards for women returning to work after maternity leave. The proposed framework could address workplace accommodation, protection of professional roles and status, lactation support and grievance redressal.
The judgment came in a case involving chartered accountant Rakhi Bisht, who had been working as an accounting manager at technology company HashiCorp. She had joined the company in 2022 and was earning about ₹2.6 lakh a month.
After taking maternity leave, Bisht returned to work in July 2024. What she found was very different from the workplace she had left.
Her managerial team had been disbanded and she was moved to the treasury department, where she was given work that was substantially clerical in nature. Although her designation and remuneration were not necessarily the only things at issue, the court found that the change had significantly affected the substance of her professional role.
Bisht eventually resigned from the company in October 2024 and approached the Delhi High Court, alleging that she had suffered professional disadvantage after taking maternity leave.
Justice Sachin Datta, in a judgment delivered on August 31, said maternity protection cannot be interpreted so narrowly that an employer can technically retain a woman on the payroll while stripping away the responsibilities and authority attached to her position.
In simple terms, the court said an employer cannot keep someone’s designation and salary unchanged but quietly take away the meaningful work, managerial authority or career path that came with the job.
The court held that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to return to the post she occupied before going on leave. If that position has genuinely ceased to exist for legitimate organisational reasons, she should be offered an equivalent role.
That alternative cannot be judged only by looking at the salary.
The court said factors such as grade, professional status, responsibilities, managerial authority, reporting structure and prospects of promotion or appraisal must also be considered.
The ruling also places an important responsibility on employers. If a woman’s original position is genuinely unavailable, the employer should inform her before she returns to work, explain why the position is no longer available and provide details of the alternative role being offered.
If the employee raises an objection, the employer must consider it and communicate its decision through a reasoned written response.
The court also recognised that returning mothers may themselves need changes to their working arrangements. A woman may seek adjustments to her duties, working hours, workplace, work pattern or even an alternative role after maternity leave.
This distinction is important. Workplace flexibility should support a woman’s return to work; it should not become a convenient excuse for reducing her professional standing.
The court’s observations were rooted in Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, which protects women from adverse changes to their conditions of service during maternity leave. The High Court said these conditions include much more than continued employment.
They cover the actual nature of the job, functional status, reporting hierarchy, supervisory responsibilities and prospects for appraisal and promotion.
The court’s concern was that a narrow interpretation of maternity protection could allow employers to do indirectly what the law prevents them from doing directly.
For example, a woman could technically remain employed and continue receiving the same salary, but lose her team, decision-making authority and important assignments. Over time, such changes could affect promotions, professional visibility and future earnings.
That, the court indicated, would undermine the very purpose of maternity protection.
The judgment comes against the backdrop of a wider conversation about the challenges women face when returning to work after childbirth. For many women, the difficult part is not simply getting back into the office. It is rebuilding professional momentum while managing the demands of a new phase of family life.
A prolonged absence from work can sometimes affect project assignments, performance assessments, promotions and leadership opportunities. If an employer treats maternity leave as a reason to sideline an employee, the consequences can continue long after the leave itself has ended.
The Delhi High Court has now drawn a clear line against such practices.
In Bisht’s case, the court directed the employer to pay ₹10 lakh in compensation and another ₹1.5 lakh towards litigation costs.
The financial compensation addresses the individual case, but the court’s larger message reaches much further.
Maternity leave is a legal entitlement, not a career break that an employee should have to apologise for or compensate for later. A woman should not have to choose between becoming a mother and continuing on the professional path she has built.
The court’s direction to the Centre could also lead to clearer workplace practices in the future. A formal framework would give both employers and employees greater clarity about what should happen when a woman returns from maternity leave.
Companies ought to understand that supporting working mothers requires more than keeping a position technically open. They need to ensure that women can return with their professional dignity, responsibilities and career prospects protected.
The judgment reinforces a basic but important principle that taking maternity leave should not put a career on pause indefinitely.
A woman may return to work as a mother, but she should not be expected to return as a lesser professional.
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that maternity protection is about both employment and equality — ensuring that motherhood does not quietly become a penalty for professional ambition.
