Madras High Court: While hearing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a Division Bench comprising R. Suresh Kumar* and Shamim Ahmed, JJ., held that rejection of maternity leave for a third confinement was contrary to the settled legal position. The Court emphasised that the issue had already been covered by earlier Division Bench decisions following the dictum of the Supreme Court in K. Umadevi v. State of T.N., (2025) 8 SCC 263, and therefore the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
Background:
The case arose from the rejection order dated 15-12-2025, by which the petitioner’s request for maternity leave for her third pregnancy was turned down. The rejection was founded upon a clarification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, stating that there was no provision in the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules for granting maternity leave to married women government servants in respect of their third child.
The petitioner submitted that similar matters had already been considered and decided by Division Benches of this Court, wherein maternity leave for third confinement was allowed. The respondents, however, contended that the earlier order was applicable only to the petitioner in that case and could not be extended universally.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the interpretation given by the respondents was erroneous. The Court highlighted that such an interpretation of the judicial order, which is an order in rem, cannot be accepted. As the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in maternity leave third pregnancy K. Umadevi (supra), has already been followed in the said judgment, it cannot be stated that the judgment would apply only to the petitioner therein. By making such a statement, the officer concerned, i.e., Respondent 2, is attempting to give her own interpretation as if the judgment were one in personam. The Court observed that this kind of interpretation sought to be given by Respondent 2 cannot be appreciated.
The Court noted that successive Division Benches had passed orders on the same issue with similar facts, where the respective writ petitioners’ requests for sanctioning of maternity leave for the third pregnancy had been turned down, and those writ petitions were accordingly allowed. The Court stated that it expects the present respondents, i.e., the High Court Registry and also the District Judiciary, to understand the legal principle enunciated in those decisions and to pass appropriate orders in line with them.
The Court observed that despite having knowledge of these orders, the respondents adopted a pedantic approach by relying solely on the Government’s letter and disregarding judicial pronouncements. In view of this, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to extend the benefit of maternity leave for the period between 08-08-2025 to 07-08-2026 with all attendant service benefits. The Court further directed that necessary orders be passed within one week.
Before parting, the Court stressed that the respondents have not understood the principle underlying in those orders and that repeatedly rejecting the plea of employees seeking maternity benefits for third pregnancy is an agonizing fact. Therefore, to avoid recurrence of such orders, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct the Registrar General, Madras High Court to circulate this order to all judicial officers, who are the head of the unit in the District Judiciary throughout the State, for strict compliance in similar cases in future.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.
[P. Mangaiyarkkarasi v. Registrar, W.P. No. 705 of 2026, decided on 21-01-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice R. Suresh Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: M. Dinesh
For the Respondents: Karthika Ashok
Buy Constitution of India HERE
