The Madras High Court reaffirmed the legal position that maternity leave and attendant maternity benefits cannot be denied to a government servant merely because she is pregnant for the third time, directing that such benefits be extended even in cases of third pregnancy. The bench, consisting of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed, delivered this judgment while hearing a writ petition filed by an employee of the High Court, P. Mangaiyarkkarasi, who sought maternity leave for her third pregnancy after her application for such leave was denied by the Registrar (Management) of the High Court on the basis of a government clarification stating that the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules did not provide for maternity leave for permanent or temporary government servants for third confinement. The High Court noted that although the service rules did not favour granting maternity benefits for a third pregnancy, there had been earlier judicial decisions, including by the Supreme Court and by benches of the High Court itself, which had taken a consistent and positive view in similar circumstances, directing that maternity benefits be provided notwithstanding the number of pregnancies. The Court observed that the authorities had failed to properly understand the intent and effect of those previous judicial rulings and emphasized that such rulings could not be treated as applicable only to the individual petitioners in those cases.
In the present case, the authorities had relied on a government order dated August 25, 2025, which clarified that there was no provision under the Fundamental Rules for maternity leave for a third child or confinement. Based on this, the Registrar (Management) had rejected Mangaiyarkkarasi’s request for maternity leave for the period covering her expected delivery and postnatal recovery. The High Court, however, took the view that earlier judicial decisions—including those of successive Division Benches granting maternity leave for third pregnancies on facts identical to those of the present petition—had laid down a legal principle which ought to have been applied by the respondents. When the respondents argued that those earlier decisions were applicable only to the petitioners in those matters and not binding on all cases, the Court observed that the Supreme Court in its jurisprudence, notably in the judgment in Umadevi versus the Government of Tamil Nadu, had taken a similar view, and that the narrow interpretation sought by the authorities could not be accepted.
The bench expressed that when two separate Division Benches of the High Court had successively allowed maternity leave for a third pregnancy under similar factual situations, the legal principles enunciated in those decisions should have been understood and followed by the High Court registry and the district judiciary without necessitating repeated litigation. The Court rejected the approach of the authorities, describing their reliance on a narrow interpretation of prior orders as pedantic and unjustifiable. Such interpretation, the Court reasoned, undermined the consistent judicial position that maternity benefits are not to be restricted on the basis of the number of pregnancies where service rules, read in context of judicial precedent, would not prohibit such benefits.
In light of these considerations, the Madras High Court set aside the order of the Registrar (Management) that had denied maternity leave to Mangaiyarkkarasi. It directed that the High Court extend maternity leave and all associated benefits to the petitioner within a specified timeframe, mandating that appropriate orders be passed by the respondents within one week from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court’s decision thereby ensured that the petitioner would receive maternity leave for the statutory period and all attendant benefits available to her as a government employee, without discrimination on the basis of her third pregnancy.
The High Court also took proactive measures to ensure wider compliance with its legal position in similar cases. The bench directed the High Court registry to circulate the order to all judicial officers heading the district judiciary throughout the state of Tamil Nadu to ensure strict adherence to the principle that maternity benefits must be provided even for third pregnancies. Additionally, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu to communicate the judgment to the Secretaries of Government and heads of departments for strict compliance, highlighting the need for administrative authorities across the state to align their practices with established judicial interpretation on this issue.
The writ petition arose after the petitioner’s initial leave application was rejected due to the clarification by the Human Resources Management Department of the Tamil Nadu Government, which was interpreted as excluding entitlement to maternity leave for third confinements. The petitioner had sought not only the quashing of the rejection order but also the grant of maternity leave for a full period covering her expected confinement and postnatal period, with all attendant service benefits. The respondents defended the rejection on the ground that the relevant Fundamental Rules did not provide for maternity leave for a third child or confinement, particularly in respect of permanent or temporary government employees, and maintained that the decision in the petitioner’s case was in accordance with the service rules as clarified by the government. They argued that the previous decisions of the High Court were personal to those cases and therefore not binding in the present matter.
The High Court’s judgment clarified that the prior rulings, including decisions of the Supreme Court on related matters, could not be dismissed as applicable solely to individual petitioners, especially when successive benches had dealt with identical factual scenarios and had consistently granted maternity benefits in third-pregnancy cases. In this context, the Court reinforced that administrative reliance on a rigid interpretation of service rules to deny maternity benefits was contrary to the trend of judicial interpretation that seeks to harmonize statutory provisions, service rules, and constitutional principles ensuring equality and dignity at the workplace.
By issuing its directions for broader dissemination of the judgment and by mandating communication to relevant administrative authorities, the High Court underscored its intention to foster uniformity in application of the law relating to maternity benefits for government employees in Tamil Nadu. The judgment thereby not only provided relief to the individual petitioner but also sought to establish clarity and consistency in the treatment of similar cases going forward, emphasizing that maternity benefits, as recognized in judicial precedents, must be extended without discrimination and that denial on the basis of the number of pregnancies is unsustainable where the law and judicial interpretations support entitlement.
The case, titled P. Mangaiyarkkarasi versus The Registrar General and Others, was decided under W.P. No. 705 of 2026, and was reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42. It reflects the Madras High Court’s stance that maternity leave and benefits form an essential part of service conditions for government employees, and that administrative practices must align with the evolving legal framework governing such entitlements, ensuring that women employees are not denied their rightful benefits simply on account of pregnancy order or count.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.