The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman returning from maternity leave should ordinarily be restored to the same position she held before going on leave and cannot be professionally disadvantaged because of pregnancy, childbirth or maternity leave.
Justice Sachin Datta delivered the judgment on August 31, 2026, in a petition filed by chartered accountant Rakhi Bisht, who alleged that HashiCorp reduced her professional responsibilities after she returned from maternity leave in July 2024.
The court directed the company to pay her ₹10 lakh compensation and ₹1.5 lakh towards costs, with 9% annual interest if the amount is not paid within eight weeks. Bisht had joined HashiCorp as Manager-Accounting in June 2022 with around 14 years of professional experience and a monthly salary of ₹2.6 lakh.
After informing the company of her pregnancy in May 2023, she was moved to another team and later took maternity leave. On returning, she alleged that her earlier managerial role and reporting team were no longer available and that she was assigned Treasury-related work which she considered substantially inferior.
She also said she was excluded from managerial meetings while male colleagues were promoted to Senior Manager. HashiCorp denied demoting her, arguing that her designation, salary and seniority remained unchanged and that the Treasury assignment was temporary and driven by organisational requirements.
The court, however, held that maternity protection extends beyond salary and job title to responsibilities, authority, reporting structures and career progression. It also directed the Centre to frame rules or directions within six months covering post-maternity role protection, pregnancy-related accommodation, lactation support, creche facilities, grievance redressal and safeguards against retaliation.
A Role Is More Than A Title
Bisht’s case centred on what happened after she returned to work, rather than simply whether she continued receiving her salary. According to the court record, she returned to HashiCorp in July 2024 after taking maternity leave in December 2023.
She found that her previous position had been filled and was assigned to the Treasury Department. She alleged that the work was largely clerical and ordinarily performed by a Staff Accountant, around three levels below her managerial position.
The court also examined internal correspondence from shortly before her return, in which colleagues were asked whether they had “something” or “anything” that could be assigned to her. Justice Datta rejected the idea that keeping an employee’s salary and designation unchanged is enough to establish that her employment conditions have been protected.
The court said “conditions of service” include the nature of duties, functional status, reporting hierarchy, supervisory responsibilities and consideration for appraisal and promotion. It held that protection under Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 extends to adverse actions such as demotion, reduced managerial authority, substantially inferior assignments, withdrawal of significant responsibilities and denial of promotional opportunities.
“Under no circumstance, can maternity be allowed to become a source of ignominy at the work place,” the court observed. The court further said that pregnancy and maternity cannot become grounds for professional disadvantage, loss of status or denial of career progression.
It also found that the creche facility was not functional when Bisht sought to use it, holding that merely having a facility on paper cannot satisfy a statutory obligation when the facility is unavailable in practice.
Court Seeks Stronger Safeguards
The High Court’s ruling goes beyond Bisht’s individual dispute and seeks a clearer framework for women returning to work after maternity leave. The court held that a woman should ordinarily be restored to the post she occupied immediately before proceeding on maternity leave.
If that position genuinely becomes unavailable for bona fide organisational reasons, she should receive an equivalent role with substantially similar pay, grade, status, seniority, responsibilities, managerial authority, decision-making functions, promotional opportunities and career prospects.
The court also said employers should inform women in advance if their role, responsibilities, reporting structure or other significant conditions are proposed to change, and should explain the reasons for such changes.
The judgment noted that neither the Maternity Benefit Act nor the Code on Social Security, 2020 provides a comprehensive framework for post-maternity reintegration. It therefore directed the Centre to frame rules, schemes or directions within six months under the Code, after consultation with relevant stakeholders, including State governments, Labour Commissioners, employers’ organisations and expert bodies.
The measures are expected to address pregnancy-related accommodation, protection of role and status after maternity leave, lactation support, creche disclosure and functionality, grievance timelines and protection against retaliation.
The court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance of amicus curiae Sanjeev Mahajan and Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish K Dixit, whose submissions included constructive proposals on implementing maternity protections.
Bisht had sought ₹50 lakh in compensation, but the court awarded ₹10 lakh, along with ₹1.5 lakh in costs. Since she had already resigned and joined another company, the question of reinstatement no longer arose, but the court proceeded to address the larger legal protections involved.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Delhi High Court’s judgment sends an important message about what equality at work should look like in practice. Maternity leave is a legal protection, not a favour, and taking time away to give birth should not quietly cost a woman the authority, responsibilities or opportunities she worked to build.
At the same time, workplace restructuring and legitimate business decisions must remain possible, provided they are genuinely independent of pregnancy or maternity and do not become a convenient way to sideline new mothers. The court’s emphasis on meaningful reintegration is therefore significant: fairness cannot be measured only by a payslip or designation when the substance of someone’s professional life has changed.
Also read: 7-Year-Old Girl Dies After Chloroquine Dose in Andhra Village, 50+ Fall Ill; CM Orders Probe
