The Madras High Court has set aside the order rejecting maternity leave for a government servant for her third pregnancy, holding that denial of such benefits despite binding judicial precedents is legally unsustainable.
Allowing the writ petition, the Division Bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed has noted that earlier division bench decisions successively passed orders sanctioning maternity leave for the third confinement based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Umadevi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204.
The Bench rejected the registry’s interpretation that the earlier division bench ruling applied only to the individual petitioner in that case, observing that such an interpretation wrongly treated judgments in rem as judgments in personam.
Criticising the registry’s approach, the court said that giving precedence to a letter given by the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Human Resources Management (F.R.III) Department over binding judicial decisions amounted to a “pedantic” and unacceptable stance. Setting aside the impugned order, the court directed the respondent to extend the benefits of maternity leave, along with all service benefits, within the period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Noting the hardship caused to employees by the repeated rejection of maternity leave claims for third pregnancies despite earlier court orders, and the failure of the authorities to apply the principles laid down therein, the Court directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to circulate the judgment to all district judicial officers across the State and instructed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to ensure strict compliance with the law laid down in earlier decisions. The Court also directed that a copy of the order be communicated to the Secretaries to the Government and the Heads of Department for strict compliance and follow-up.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Appearances:
Advocate M.Dinesh for petitioner
Advocate Karthika Ashok for respondents
