New Delhi, September 2, 2026: The Delhi High Court has ruled that pregnancy and maternity leave cannot be used as grounds to disadvantage a woman employee in her career, including by reducing her professional status, responsibilities, authority or prospects of advancement.
In a significant judgment delivered on August 31, 2026, Court held that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to be restored to the position she held before proceeding on leave. If that position is genuinely unavailable for bona fide organisational reasons, the employer must provide an equivalent position in terms of pay, grade, status, role, responsibilities, managerial authority and prospects for career advancement.
The judgment was delivered in Rakhi Bisht v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 14785/2024, CNR No. DLHC010727702024. The judgment was pronounced on August 31, 2026.
Rakhi Bisht, a Chartered Accountant with around 14 years of professional experience, was appointed by HashiCorp as Manager, Accounting in June 2022 at a monthly salary of ₹2.60 lakh.
Woman employee informed the company of her pregnancy in May 2023. She was subsequently moved to another team and proceeded on maternity leave in December 2023. When she returned to work in July 2024, she was informed that her earlier position was no longer available.
Instead, she was assigned to the Treasury Department. Bisht contended that the duties were substantially different from her managerial accounting role and were traditionally performed by a Staff Accountant, a position approximately three levels below her designation. She alleged that the reassignment undermined her qualifications, experience and professional standing.
<head><script async src=”https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-6274442986372300″
crossorigin=”anonymous”></script></head>
The company maintained, among other things, that the reassignment was connected with organisational requirements and that the Treasury role was appropriately scoped. The Court, however, examined the sequence of events and found that the position previously held by Bisht had been entrusted to another employee during her maternity leave and that there had been no adequate planning for her return.
The Court particularly noted that the question of what role Bisht would perform upon her return was addressed only shortly before she resumed work. The employer had apparently approached colleagues to see whether they had “something” or “anything” that could be assigned to her, rather than identifying a position commensurate with her previous role.
‘Maternity cannot become a source of ignominy’
In one of the strongest observations in the judgment, Justice Datta stated:“Under no circumstance, can maternity be allowed to become a source of ignominy at the work place.”
The Court held that the protection available under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, read with constitutional guarantees, cannot be reduced to merely preserving an employee’s salary or designation while stripping her of meaningful responsibilities or career opportunities.
The Court observed that Articles 14, 15, 21 and 42 of the Constitution collectively protect equality, non-discrimination, dignity and reproductive autonomy. It concluded, “pregnancy and maternity cannot be treated as grounds for professional disadvantage, demotion, loss of status, or denial of career progression.”
The Court further held that motherhood cannot become a basis for unequal treatment or professional disadvantage at the workplace.
Same designation and salary are not enough
The judgment goes beyond the conventional understanding of workplace protection.
The Court made clear that an employer cannot defeat maternity protection simply by retaining a woman employee’s designation and salary while substantially reducing the substance of her job.
Under the Court’s interpretation of Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, protection against adverse variation of service conditions includes the nature of duties, grade, functional status, reporting hierarchy, supervisory responsibilities and entitlement to consideration for appraisal and promotion.
The Court expressly stated that retaining the same designation and remuneration is “necessary but not by itself sufficient” where other important attributes of the employee’s position are diminished.
Employers must provide an equivalent position
The Court laid down a clear framework for women returning from maternity leave.
A woman employee is ordinarily entitled to return to her previous post. Where that post is genuinely unavailable for bona fide and demonstrable organisational reasons, the employer must offer a position as nearly equivalent as possible in terms of pay, grade, professional status, role and responsibilities, managerial authority andprospects of advancement.
The employer must also inform the employee, before she resumes duty, why her previous post is unavailable and provide details of the proposed alternative position, including its grade, remuneration, reporting relationship and duties.
If the employee objects to the proposed reassignment, the employer must consider the objection and communicate its decision through a reasoned communication.
Rs. 10 lakh compensation awarded
Although Bisht had subsequently resigned from HashiCorp and joined another multinational company as an Accounting Manager, the Court found sufficient circumstances to award compensation.
The Court directed the employer to pay her Rs. 10 lakh in compensation, approximately equivalent to four months’ salary, along with Rs. 1.5 lakh towards costs. The amounts were ordered to be paid within eight weeks, failing which they would carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of judgment until realisation.
Centre directed to frame maternity-workplace safeguards
The judgment also addresses a larger regulatory gap. The Court noted that neither the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, nor the Code on Social Security, 2020, expressly provides a comprehensive framework governing the reintegration of women into the workplace after maternity leave.
Consequently, the Court directed the Union Government to frame rules or schemes, or issue appropriate directions, dealing with matters including pregnancy-related workplace accommodation, protection of role and professional status after maternity leave, lactation support, crèche facilities, grievance-redressal timelines, protection against retaliation; and authorities competent to receive and determine complaints. The exercise has been directed to be completed within six months.
A significant ruling for women in the workplace
The Rakhi Bisht judgment therefore moves the legal protection surrounding maternity beyond the narrow concept of maternity leave. The Court has emphasised that the right to maternity leave must be accompanied by a meaningful right to return to work without suffering a professional penalty because of pregnancy or childbirth.
The ruling is particularly significant for private-sector employment, where changes in responsibilities, reporting structures or job roles can sometimes be presented as ordinary business decisions even when they substantially diminish an employee’s professional standing.
