1 CGHC010342912026 2026:CGHC:39280 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6563 of 2026 Dr. Nikita Shrivastava W/o Abhishek Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o DK Hospital, Plot N O. 111, Transport Nagar, Indira Commercial Complex, Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Dean, Late Bisahu Das Mahant Memorial Government Medical College, Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director, Medical Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondents/ State: Mr. K. G. Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 08/09/2026 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.09.10 11:03:42 +0530 2 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 06.08.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby her services have been sought to be terminated w.e.f. 05.09.2026, and further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to sanction and release 180 days’ paid maternity leave to the petitioner for the period from 01.08.2026 to 28.01.2027. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a contractual Assistant Professor in the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at Late Bisahu Das Mahant Memorial Government Medical College, Korba, has been issued the impugned notice dated 06.08.2026 proposing termination of her services w.e.f. 05.09.2026 on the ground of joining of a regularly appointed candidate. He submits that the petitioner had applied for 180 days’ paid maternity leave from 01.08.2026 to 28.01.2027 under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which was duly recommended by the Head of the Department. It is contended that once the petitioner had applied for maternity leave, the respondents ought not to have issued the impugned notice and her contractual assignment ought to have been continued till the period of maternity leave sought by her. According to the petitioner, instead of considering her statutory entitlement, the respondents issued the impugned notice, thereby seeking to deprive her of the statutory maternity benefits, contrary to Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the impugned notice and for grant of 180 days’ paid maternity leave with consequential 3 benefits. In support of his contention, learned counsel places reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in WPS No.5580/2026, wherein this Court has referred to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Kavita Yadav vs. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department & Others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 421. 3. Learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions made by the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 06.08.2026 has been passed in accordance with the applicable rules and terms and conditions governing the petitioner’s contractual engagement. He submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended with the writ petition. 5. From perusal of the appointment order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P/2), it is evident that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for a period of one year or till regular appointment is made on the said post, whichever is earlier. The appointment was governed by the Chhattisgarh Government Contract Appointment Rules, 2012 and the conditions stipulated in the appointment order, including the condition regarding one month’s notice or payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof. 4 6. In the present case, the petitioner’s contractual engagement has been discontinued on account of joining of a regularly appointed candidate, which is in accordance with the terms governing her contractual appointment. It is not a case where maternity leave was denied to the petitioner during the subsistence of her contractual engagement; rather, the contractual engagement itself was liable to come to an end upon regular appointment. Even from a bare perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the petitioner’s contractual assignment has been discontinued by giving one month’s notice. Thus, the reliance placed upon Dr. Kavita Yadav (supra) is distinguishable on facts and does not applicable to the petitioner’s case. Consequently, no interference is warranted with the impugned action. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned notice warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar