Maternity Leave Benefit Extends To Government Servants For Third Pregnancy: Madras High Court Grants One-Year Leave, Orders Statewide Circulation For Compliance
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed set aside the High Court administration’s rejection of a government servant’s request for maternity leave for her third pregnancy and directed the respondents to grant maternity leave for one year from August 8, 2025 to August 7, 2026, along with attendant service benefits, within one week. The dispute arose after the request was declined on the ground that the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules do not provide maternity leave for a third child, relying on a government clarification. The Bench noted that similar directions have been issued earlier but continued refusals persisted and ordered the High Court Registry to circulate the decision to district heads across the State for strict compliance.
The writ petition was instituted by a woman government employee challenging an administrative order rejecting her request for maternity leave in respect of her third pregnancy. The petitioner sought issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the Registrar (Management), High Court of Madras, dated 15 December 2025, by which her claim for maternity leave was denied. She further sought consequential directions for grant of maternity leave for a period of one year and for annulling various categories of leave already availed during the relevant period.
The rejection was founded on a communication issued by the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Human Resources Management (F.R.III) Department, clarifying that the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules do not provide for maternity leave to permanent or non-permanent married woman government servants for a third child or confinement.
The petitioner contended that the issue was no longer res integra, as earlier Division Bench decisions of the High Court, following a judgment of the Supreme Court, had allowed similar claims. The respondents, however, treated those decisions as applicable only to the individual petitioners therein and declined to extend the same benefit. The dispute before the Court thus centered on the legality of denying maternity leave for a third pregnancy despite binding judicial precedents on the issue.
The Division Bench noted that “this writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the second respondent by which the plea raised by the petitioner for grant of Maternity Leave for third confinement or third pregnancy of the petitioner has been turned down.”
The Court recorded the basis of the rejection, observing that “the reasons stated by the second respondent for passing the said impugned order dated 15.12.2025 is that, the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Human Resources Management (F.R.III) Department, vide letter dated 25.08.2025 has clarified that, there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules for grant of Maternity Leave to permanent / not permanent married woman Government Servants for their third child / confinement.”
Referring to earlier binding precedent, the Bench stated that “already the issue had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33559 of 2025” and that the said writ petition “was allowed after following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu.”
The Court rejected the respondents’ interpretation that the earlier decision applied only to the petitioner in that case, observing that “this kind of interpretation of the judicial order which is an order in rem… cannot be stated as if that, the said judgment would apply only to the said petitioner.” It further recorded that “by stating the same, the officer concerned… is trying to give her own interpretation as if that the said judgment is judgment in personam.”
The Bench also noted that another writ petition involving similar facts had been allowed and observed that “when two Division Benches successively passed orders on the same issue with the similar facts,” the authorities were expected to understand and apply the legal principle laid down therein.
Expressing disapproval of the continued rejection of such claims, the Court stated that “this kind of pedantic approach being adopted by the officers concerned… cannot be appreciated.” It further recorded that “repeatedly rejecting the plea being made by the employees seeking such maternity benefits for third pregnancy would be agonizing.”
The Court ordered that “the impugned order is set aside. There shall be a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of Maternity Leave to the writ petitioner as per her entitlement especially for a period between 08.08.2025 to 07.08.2026 with all attendant and service benefits available to the employee concernednd necessary orders to that effect be passed by the respondents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Before parting with the matter, “we deem it appropriate to give a direction to the Registrar General, Madras High Court to circulate this order to all the judicial officers, who are the head of the unit in the District Judiciary throughout the State, for strict compliance regarding the similar case in future. Similar direction is issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai to strictly adhere the principles laid down in the decisions referred above. The copy of this order shall be communicated to the Secretaries to Government and the Heads of Department for strict compliance and follow up.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Dinesh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. Karthika Ashok, Advocate
Case Title: P. Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras & Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 705 of 2026
Bench: Justice R. Suresh Kumar, Justice Shamim Ahmed
