Public service employees are classifi ed into three paragraphs in article 4 of Civil Servants Act Number 657 as being civil servants, contracted personnel and public service workers according to the way they are employed. However, an amendment to article 4 (D) of the same Act specifi es that those who fall within the category of public service workers are excluded from the scope of its application, because their employment contract and its provisions for recruitment, promotion and redundancy are subject to labour law. As a result of this separation, it may well happen that despite working for the same public employer, the employment terms and conditions applicable to some are regulated by the Public Servants Act, while others’ employment terms and conditions are governed by an entirely diff erent set of provisions under the Labour Act, causing inequality. The inequality is much more apparent in maternity rights at work, in particular the start and end of maternity leave, return to work following maternity leave, health and safety risks to pregnant worker or mother at work place. Commonly, as a result of societal gender bias woman workers whose employment is subject to labour law rather than the law of civil service are unfairly driven by a prejudicial perception into making a choice between caring her new born and having a professional career upon return to work from maternal leave. Finding herself in such a dilemma, a woman employee is forced by the social bias and sexism into “motherhood” as part of daily occurrence in the community. In addition, neither of these two acts concerning civil servants and labour provide equal or adequate paternity leave and pay. Our work fi rst aims to highlight such inequalities, inadequacies and shortcomings in the aforesaid statutes and then suggests what is legally required to overcome them.