Can’t Reject Plea Of Govt Servants For Grant Of Maternity Benefits For Third Pregnancy: Madras High Court Asks Registrar To Inform Judicial Officers

The High Court was considering a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Registrar (Management) by which the petitioner's plea for the grant of maternity leave for her third pregnancy was turned down.

The Single Bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar held, “Before parting with the case, we would like to state that, since repeatedly orders though had been passed by this Court and having knowledge over the orders, the officers like the respondents have not understood the principle underlying in those orders and repeatedly rejecting the plea being made by the employees seeking such maternity benefits for third pregnancy would be agonizing fact and therefore, in order to avoid such kind of recurrence of the orders like the present one (impugned order), 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.”

Advocate M.Dinesh represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Karthika Ashok represented the Respondent.

Background

The plea was turned down vide the impugned order on the ground that the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Human Resources Management (F.R.III) Department, by a letter dated August 25, 2025 had 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.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the issue had already come up for consideration before a Division Bench in a case with similar facts, where the Bench allowed the petition following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (2025). The Bench noted that in the impugned order, the Registrar (Management), High Court of Madras, had stated that the order passed by the High Court applied only to the petitioner therein. As per the Bench, such an interpretation sought to be given by the Registrar could not be appreciated.

It was further noticed that, in another case with very similar facts, the Division Bench of the High Court had allowed the writ petition following the dictum of the Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case (Supra). The Bench thus thus stated, “When two Division Benches successively passed orders on the same issue with the similar facts where also the respective writ petitioners request for sanctioning of the Maternity Leave for the third pregnancy since has been turned down has been dealt with and accordingly, the said writ petitions were allowed, we expect that, the present respondents, i.e., High Court Registry and also the District Judiciary should understand the legal principle enunciated in those decisions and pass appropriate orders.”

Thus, setting aside the impugned order, the Bench directed the respondents to extend the benefit of maternity leave to the writ petitioner as per her entitlement, especially for the period between August 8, 2025, and August 7, 2026, with all available attendant and service benefits.

“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 in Umadevi’s case as well as B.Ranjitha’s case and G.Umanandhini’s case cited supra and the copy of this order shall be communicated to the Secretaries to Government and the Heads of Department for strict compliance and follow up”, the Bench directed while allowing the Petition.

Cause Title: P.Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras (Case No.: W.P.No.705 of 2026)

Click here to read/download Order