The Madras High Court recently emphasized that the Maternity Leave Rules should be interpreted to allow a woman employee to claim maternity leave twice during her service period. The interpretation should not be restrictive to the extent that a female employee is denied maternity leave for her third pregnancy, even if it is her first time requesting such leave.

The Court observed that the Rule should be understood in a manner that ensures a female government employee can claim maternity leave twice throughout her career, regardless of the fact that it may be requested for the third pregnancy. The State cannot refuse maternity leave solely by citing the third pregnancy if the leave is being claimed for the first time.

Justice R. Vijayakumar, in his judgment, noted that the legislative intent behind the Tamil Nadu Government’s Fundamental Rules was to discourage large families for reasons related to the health of women, the financial costs associated with raising children, the government's population control policy, and the strain on the state’s finances from extending maternity leave for multiple children. He suggested that the rules should be interpreted purposively to align with these objectives. The interpretation should ensure that when a female employee seeks maternity leave for the first time, it cannot be denied merely because it is for a third pregnancy.

The Court further clarified that the legislative purpose behind the Fundamental Rules was to discourage having more children, taking into account the health risks to women and the financial strain of raising additional children. This was in line with the government's population control policies. The limitation of maternity leave to two children was justified based on the premise that the state exchequer could not bear the financial burden of extending maternity leave for several children. Therefore, the Court stressed the need for a purposive interpretation of the rule to fulfill the objectives behind it.

The case involved Kohila, a staff nurse at Government Rajaji Hospital in Madurai, who challenged the hospital’s decision to deny her maternity leave and her medical fitness certificate, which stated that she was fit to return to duty. Kohila had been appointed as a contract staff nurse in October 2008 and later became a permanent employee in June 2018. She had two children in 2009 and 2012 but did not claim maternity leave for these pregnancies because she was employed on a contract basis at the time.

In 2020, after a divorce and remarriage, Kohila became pregnant again. She applied for maternity leave for one year, but the hospital rejected her request. The Administrative Officer instructed her to apply for other types of leave. Kohila then applied for 365 days of leave, consisting of 90 days medical leave, 169 days earned leave on medical grounds, and 106 days loss of pay on medical grounds. Her request was accepted, and she was referred to a medical board, which declared her fit to resume her duties and deemed her request for extended leave unjustified.

Kohila’s counsel argued that she should not be denied maternity leave as she was claiming it for the first time, citing a decision by the Kerala High Court, which allowed maternity leave to a woman who had not availed it for her first two pregnancies and was now requesting it for a third pregnancy from a second marriage.

On the other hand, the Government Advocate relied on Rule 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, which stipulates that maternity leave can only be granted to a woman government employee with fewer than two surviving children. The Government argued that Kohila's request did not meet the criteria under the service rules and, thus, should be rejected.

The Court, however, observed that it was undisputed that Kohila had not availed maternity leave for her first two pregnancies. Consequently, it held that the rule could not be invoked to deny her the right to claim maternity leave for the third pregnancy, particularly as this was her first time seeking such leave. The Court also noted that granting her maternity leave for the third pregnancy would not put any strain on the state's financial resources.

The Court further criticized the authorities for subjecting Kohila to a medical board review and for the unreasonable decision to declare her fit to resume duty shortly before her expected delivery date. Kohila’s expected delivery was set for September 30, 2024, but the medical board declared her fit on September 25, 2024, which the Court found to be strange. Ultimately, the Court ruled that Kohila was entitled to maternity leave and set aside the previous decisions rejecting her application. The Court directed the authorities to grant her maternity leave based on her application within 12 weeks.

Cause Title: C.Kohila v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others

Case No: W.P.(MD).No.23455 of 2024

Date: January-21-2025

Bench: Justice R. Vijayakumar

[Read/Download order]