As per case facts, the Petitioner, an Assistant Professor (Anesthesiologist) on contractual basis with Respondent No.2 (operated by Respondent No.1), applied for maternity leave after multiple contract renewals. Her request ... for maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, was refused by Respondent No.2, citing that contractual employees are not eligible under their service rules. This refusal came despite earlier court orders indicating the Respondents' agreement in principle to grant the benefits, prompting the Petitioner to file a Writ Petition. The question arose whether a contractual employee, fulfilling the statutory eligibility criteria, can be denied maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, based on the terms of their contract or the employer's internal policy. Finally, the Court ruled that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, applies to contractual employees, with Section 27 overriding any inconsistent contractual terms or policies. The Court found the Respondents' denial of benefits to be contrary to law, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, and against the dignity of motherhood. The Impugned Communication was quashed, and Respondents were directed to pay the maternity benefits expeditiously within six weeks.