A judgment by the Delhi High Court on Labour Day, May 1, shone the light on unfair conditions imposed upon female contractual workers after it quashed the termination order of an ad-hoc college professor who had taken maternity leave and whose tenure was not extended by her place of employment. Manisha Priyadarshani, an ad-hoc professor of English at Aurobindo Evening College since 2014, took leave between January and March 2019 for the birth of her child. Following this, her tenure, which ended on March 18, was not extended at the start of the new semester in May, although other ad-hoc professors, who were junior to her, were given extensions. As Delhi University does not entitle ad-hoc employees to avail of maternity leave and benefits, the college claimed that it was well within its rights to terminate Priyadarshani’s appointment and “her non-reporting for duty from 21.01.2019 to 18.03.2019, was improper”. Priyadarshani also moved a petition in the Delhi high court last March, challenging the 2005 Delhi University rule that denies maternity leave to ad-hoc employees, and sought benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961. This petition is still pending in court, said Kush Chaturvedi, the advocate representing her on the matter. The May 1 judgment comes in the wake of widespread agitation by ad-hoc professors for benefits as well as induction into permanent rolls of the university. According to Rudrashish Chakraborty, a former member of the Academic Council of Delhi University, the number of ad-hocs has grown to disproportionate numbers in the last few years. Since 2012, Delhi University Teachers Association (Duta) has demanded that all ad-hocs should be made permanent. It has also taken up the issue of maternity leave of ad-hoc teachers, Chakraborty, a former elected member of the Duta executive, said. “Delhi University has 50% teachers in the ad-hoc capacity — that’s 4500 teachers — and a huge number of them are women, teaching for a long time. They are given appointments for four months, which is then extended after a notional break; they don’t receive annual increments or the same kind of benefits as permanent teachers. Priyadarshani’s case is symptomatic of a larger malaise in the university system: that of apathy of the authorities towards the ad-hoc teachers and also withdrawal of any financial commitment to higher education,” he said. In its judgment, the high court found that the justification offered by the college that she was not at work when her tenure ended, as she was on leave that was not granted to someone in her capacity, was not “a legitimate ground to deny extension of tenure” to her. The court further stated that this was akin to penalising a woman for becoming a mother while still employed, and equating motherhood to loss of employment. The court held that Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteed her right to employment and protected her reproductive rights as a woman. “Such a justification offered by the respondents for declining to grant an extension to the appellant/petitioner as she had highlighted her need for leave due to her pregnancy and confinement would be tantamount to penalising a woman for electing to become a mother while still employed and thus pushing her into a choice-less situation as motherhood would be equated with loss of employment,” the order of a two-judge bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Asha Menon, read. Namita Rajput, officer on special study of Aurobindo College (evening), confirmed that Delhi University did not have provisions for granting maternity relief to ad-hoc teachers. On a question regarding their future course of action, Rajput said that the college was yet to decide on the matter. Though the order was passed on May 1, the college is yet to contact her regarding joining back, Priyadarshani told Hindustan Times.