A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.:— Petitioner, Smt. Rasitha C.H., is working as Assistant Professor in Medical Microbiology on contract basis at the School of Health Sciences, in Calicut University.
2. She was appointed as lecturer in Medical Microbiology and Medical Biochemistry at Centre for Health Sciences, Calicut University Campus on contract basis from 14.07.2008. Her period of service with the University is as follows:
“14.07.2008 to 13.07.2009, 17.07.2009 to 16.07.2010, 21.07.2010 to 20.07.2011, 25.07.2011 to 24.07.2012, 28.07.2012 to 27.07.2013, 01.08.2013 to 31.07.2014, 05.08.2014 to 04.08.2015, 10.08.2015 to 09.08.2016, 16.08.2016 to 14.08.2017” On expiry of the last contract, she was re-engaged w.e.f. 17.08.2017 for a period of one year. This would show that petitioner has been engaged from time to time on contract basis for past one decade.
3. The present issue is in regard to the claim for maternity benefits, which was denied by the University. University submits that in terms of the agreement petitioner is not entitled to such benefits. University specifically refers Clause 11 of agreement which reads thus:
“Clause 11: The party of the first part will not be entitled to any claim for future appointment in the University service whether permanent/temporary/contract by virtue of this engagement on contract.”
4. The maternity benefit is not merely a statutory benefit or a benefit flowing out of an agreement. This court consistently held that it is attached with the dignity of a woman. This Court, in Mini v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, [2018 (1) KLT 530] and Rakhi P.V. v. State of Kerala, [2018 (2) KHC 251] held that a women cannot be compelled to choose between motherhood and employment.
5. In Rakhi's case (supra) this Court has specifically referred to the claim of maternity leave due to women employees who are working under contract and this court held that such women cannot be denied the maternity benefits. It is submitted in the Bar that the judgment in Rakhi's case (supra) was affirmed by the Division Bench as well.
6. The learned counsel for the University submitted that the petitioner, being a contract employee, can at best claim only 15 days casual leave during the period of one year and also permitted to abstain from duty on account of medical conditions of maternity.
7. In Rakhi's case (supra) it was held that a woman employee cannot be denied maternity benefits merely because her status is a contractual employee. Therefore, the University is bound to grant such benefits notwithstanding anything contained in the agreement of contract.
8. In such circumstances, the University is directed to pay the maternity benefits due to the petitioner as applicable in the case of other employees of the University, within a period of two months.
9. The writ petition is disposed of as above.