Delhi High Court Orders HashiCorp to Pay Rs 10 Lakh Compensation in Maternity Leave Demotion Case

Delhi High Court has ordered HashiCorp to pay Rs 10 lakh in compensation to Rakhi Bisht, a Chartered Accountant who returned from maternity leave in 2024 to find her managerial role and reporting team gone, and was instead placed in a clerical-level treasury job. The court held that maternity protection under law covers a woman's actual duties and authority, not just her salary and title, and has directed the Centre to frame a national implementation framework within six months.

A Chartered Accountant who went on maternity leave as a manager at HashiCorp returned to work seven months later to find her old job gone, her reporting team dissolved, and a clerical-level treasury role waiting for her instead. The Delhi High Court has now ordered the company to pay her Rs 10 lakh in compensation, along with Rs 1.5 lakh in costs.

Rakhi Bisht, who had roughly 14 years of professional experience, joined HashiCorp as Manager-Accounting in June 2022 on a monthly salary of Rs 2.6 lakh. She informed the company of her pregnancy in May 2023 and was moved to a different team that September, on the understanding she would be restored to her original role once she returned from leave.

Bisht went on maternity leave in December 2023 and resumed duty in July 2024. By then, her earlier position, along with the team of five employees she used to supervise, had already been handed to someone else. She was placed instead in the Treasury Department, handling "investment accounting and currency revaluation," work she said was typically performed by a staff accountant, three levels below her own designation.

She told the court she was excluded from managerial meetings for a considerable period and that colleagues made remarks about her reduced role. Despite raising objections, she was assured the arrangement was temporary, an assurance that, according to her, was never honoured.

The court noted a set of internal HashiCorp communications from 28 June 2024, just two days before Bisht was due to resume work. In these messages, a company director asked colleagues in two different teams whether they had "something" or "anything" she could be assigned, one email stated the goal was to "keep her engaged" and have her as "backup in case someone leaves."

The court held that this exchange showed no genuine effort had been made to identify a role matching her seniority, and that the process was directed at finding any available work rather than restoring her position.

Bisht had asked HashiCorp about creche facilities in September 2024. The company responded that the facility was not available at the time. The court held that a creche facility that is non-functional when an employee actually needs it does not satisfy the requirement under Section 11-A of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which mandates such facilities in establishments with fifty or more employees.

The petitioner told the court that while she remained without a team or a substantive role, her male counterparts were promoted to the position of Senior Manager. She said she stayed with the company only on repeated assurances that her position would be restored, assurances that did not materialise even after she sent a formal email of objection in August 2024 and a legal notice in September 2024.

She eventually resigned in October 2024 and joined Snap Inc as an Accounting Manager, but continued pursuing her case before the Delhi High Court.

HashiCorp denied any demotion, pointing out that Bisht's designation, salary and seniority remained unchanged and that she had even received a 10 percent increment during the period. It argued that her earlier position had to be filled because a team of four could not be left without a manager during her six-month absence, and that the treasury assignment was scoped to her managerial level.

The company also argued that the writ petition itself was not maintainable, since the dispute arose from a private employment contract rather than any public law right.

Justice Sachin Datta rejected the maintainability objection, holding that the petitioner was not seeking to enforce her employment contract but a statutory right under Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which operates independently of any private agreement between employer and employee.

On the substance of the case, the court held that protection against being disadvantaged during maternity leave is not satisfied merely by keeping a woman's salary and job title unchanged. It ruled that the protection extends to the actual content of her duties, her authority, her reporting hierarchy and her prospects for advancement, and that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to the same post she held before proceeding on leave, or an equivalent one, where the original position is genuinely unavailable.

The court also pointed to inconsistencies in HashiCorp's own submissions, including conflicting accounts of the size of the team Bisht had supervised before her leave and shifting reasons for why her original position had been filled by someone else.

Considering Bisht's professional standing as a Chartered Accountant with about 14 years of experience and her monthly salary of Rs 2.6 lakh, the court fixed her compensation at Rs 10 lakh, roughly four months' salary, along with Rs 1.5 lakh in costs. The amount is to be paid within eight weeks, failing which it will carry 9 percent annual interest until it is paid.

The court also directed the Union of India to frame, within six months, rules or a scheme under the Code on Social Security, 2020, to govern how private employers must handle a woman's return from maternity leave, including protection of her role and status, creche disclosure, grievance timelines, and safeguards against retaliation.