A research scientist employed by the Himachal Pradesh government, whose position was terminated three days after she submitted a maternity benefits application, received an interim order from the High Court on Monday halting that dismissal and permitting her to remain in her post while the case awaits further proceedings.
The interim order was issued by Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua upon taking up a writ petition filed by Aaina Sharma, which named the Union of India and additional respondents as parties. The petition was heard on October 9, and the resulting order has since been released in written form.
The bench order placed the August 7, 2026 termination on hold, with respondents directed to reinstate Dr. Sharma in her Scientist-B (Medical) post under the terms of the appointment letter she received on July 24, 2024. A follow-up hearing in the matter has been scheduled for November 18, 2026.
Notices were issued by the High Court to a set of named respondents: the Union government's health ministry, represented through its secretary; the Department of Health Research in New Delhi; the Indian Council of Medical Research; AIIMS Bilaspur in Himachal Pradesh; and the Principal Investigator attached to the Regional Level Viral Research and Diagnostic Laboratory, which operates within the Department of Microbiology at that same AIIMS campus. Parties named as respondents were allotted a four-week window in which to lodge their written replies.
The petition states that a position of Scientist-B (Medical) within the Viral Research and Diagnostic Laboratory programme — a scheme drawing its funding from the Union Department of Health Research — was filled by Dr. Sharma through a recruitment process that began with an advertisement published on March 14, 2024. That one-year posting was subsequently extended, with a new end date set for March 31, 2027.
A filing for maternity benefits was submitted on August 4, 2026, and Dr. Sharma contended that her employment came to an end three days after that date. Those facing the dismissal action argued in their defence that a restructured workforce allocation under the VRDL scheme — covering the Finance Commission period from 2026-27 through to 2030-31 — had driven the staffing changes that led to the separations.
Sharma put forward the position that her contract had been extended to run through March 31, 2027 and that the programme remained active. According to her account, the administration intended to revive the programme under a different name while simultaneously bringing in new contract staff from the ground up.
She argued that the termination notice arrived not long after she submitted a formal request for maternity benefits — a timeline she contended pointed to conduct that was both unlawful and discriminatory, particularly given that her contract had already been extended and the programme itself was continuing under a revised structure.
During the interim proceedings, the High Court order placed a hold on the termination and required her employment to continue. That ruling leaves the petitioner's claims and the respondents' justification unresolved, with both sides still to file replies before the court takes the matter any further.
Narender Singh Thakur, holding the position of Senior Panel Counsel, appeared before the court on behalf of the respondents. The order of protection remains active until the matter returns to court on November 18, 2026.
