While relying on an amendment inserted in Rule 101(A) of the Fundamental Rules which provides that in the case of a married woman Government servant having two or more than two surviving children, maternity leave has to be given on full pay for a period not exceeding 12 weeks, the Madras High Court has rejected a woman employee's request seeking payment for one-year leave period for her third pregnancy.

The High Court was considering a writ petition instituted by an Office Assistant serving in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Magisterial Level, Poonamallee, seeking a direction to the Treasury to make payment from June 2025 for the period of maternity leave sanctioned (March 26, 2025, to May 25, 2026) to the petitioner.

The Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice R. Sakthivel held, “Therefore, there is no provision under the Fundamental Rules to grant maternity leave for third child. The Treasury Officer, Tiruvallur, also relied on the policy decision of the Government relying on the Fundamental Rules that there is no provision under the Fundamental Rules to grant maternity leave for the third child.”

“Therefore, the grant of maternity leave to married woman government servant for more than two children are to be granted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13.03.2026. The Government Order, amending Fundamental Rule 101(A) was issued in pursuance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the High Court is not expected to grant the relief over and above the terms and conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13.03.2026 which was issued implementing the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”, it added.

Advocate G. Priyadharshini represented the Appellant while Advocate K.Umesh Rao represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, who has three children, had applied for maternity leave for her delivery and baby care for 365 days for a period from May 26, 2025 to May 25, 2026, along with the medical certificate before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Magisterial Level. The Judicial Magistrate sanctioned maternity leave in line with the G.O.Ms.No.84, Human Resources Management Department dated August 23, 2021. As per the said Government Order, the petitioner claimed that she was eligible for maternity leave for 365 days. The Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, approved the maternity leave granted by Judicial Magistrate. Consequently, salary bills were presented to the Treasury concerned.

The Treasury, on June 26, 2025 turned down the bills citing Fundamental Rule 101(A) on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for maternity leave of 365 days for the third child. Since the Treasury refused to pay the salary for 365 days' maternity leave, the writ petition came to be instituted.

Reasoning

Referring to Fundamental Rules 101, the Bench explained that maternity leave should be granted to a married female government servant with less than two surviving children. The Bench further explained that there is no rule provision in the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules to grant maternity leave to permanent/non-permanent married government servants for the third child.

The Bench noticed that the Government had taken a policy decision in G.O.Ms No.237, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, regarding the two surviving children norm for the grant of maternity leave. The Bench thus clarified that there is no provision under the Fundamental Rules to grant maternity leave for a third child.

The Bench noted that the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of the grant of maternity leave to the female employee for a third child, and the said judgment became the law which had to be followed scrupulously. The Bench further noted that the Apex Court had restricted the benefit to 12 weeks for the third child, and an amendment was inserted in Rule 101(A) of the Fundamental Rules.

The Bench was of the view that the High Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review, could not grant the relief contrary to the policy decision of the Government, which was issued based on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India and by amending Rule 101(A) of the Fundamental Rules. “Thus, those judgments of the High Court have denuded to lose its status as precedence and may not be followed for the purpose of granting the relief”, it added.

The Bench thus disposed of the Petition by holding that the relief sought in the writ petition could not be granted. “However, the eligible benefits as per the Fundamental Rules as amended in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13.03.2026 shall be granted to the petitioner by following the procedures as contemplated in the rules”, it ordered.

Cause Title: S.Divya v. The Registrar General (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:2429)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate G. Priyadharshini

Respondent: Advocate K. Umesh Rao, Government Counsel D.R. Gouri

Click here to read/download Order


Madras High CourtJustice SM SubramaniamJustice R.Sakthivel

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.