The High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Bench has clarified that the expression “less than two surviving children” in Rule 101(a) of the Telangana Fundamental Rules cannot be applied mechanically to deny maternity leave for a second delivery where the employee’s first pregnancy resulted in twins. In such a case, a purposive and constitutional interpretation must prevail, keeping in view Article 21, reproductive rights, maternity relief, and the object of enabling women to continue in employment.
A woman cannot be penalised for a biological event such as twin birth, which is beyond her control, and maternity leave for the second delivery must therefore be granted. Accordingly, the High Court declared that the petitioner was entitled to maternity leave for her second delivery for the period from April 14, 2026 to Oct 11, 2026, and directed the respondents to grant the benefit and to pay her full pay and allowances for that period.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sarath identified the central issue as whether a woman government servant can be denied maternity leave for her second delivery merely because her first delivery resulted in twins, thereby leaving her with two surviving children. The Court noted that the dispute was not about the existence of the “less than two surviving children” condition, but about how that condition should be interpreted where the first pregnancy itself resulted in twin births.
The Court examined the historical government orders on maternity leave, including G.O.Ms.No.254 of Nov 10, 1995 and G.O.Ms.No.152 of May 04, 2010, and noted that while the period of maternity leave was enhanced from 120 days to 180 days, the condition of “less than two surviving children” continued. It also recorded that G.O.Ms.No.152 was adopted by the respondent Society through G.O.Ms.No.50 dated May 17, 2014.
The Court compared Rule 101(a) of the Telangana Fundamental Rules with Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, and found that both use materially the same language. It reiterated that maternity leave provisions must receive a purposive interpretation, because maternity relief is linked to dignity, privacy, bodily integrity, and the continuance of women in the workplace. The Court also observed that childbirth cannot be treated as something that detracts from employment and that a woman’s rights, and the child’s right to maternal care, cannot be denied by a rigid interpretation of the rule.
The High Court further reiterated that maternity leave for the second delivery should not depend on the number of children born in the first two deliveries, and that the focus should be on the health and protection of the woman employee. Importantly, the Court observed that the birth of twins is a biological occurrence outside the control of the woman employee. It rejected the respondents’ stand that the petitioner could be denied maternity leave for her second delivery solely because the first pregnancy produced twins.
Briefly, the petitioner, Smt. Jadi Swarupa Rani, filed the petition seeking maternity leave for her second delivery without applying the “two surviving children” restriction against her, because her first pregnancy had resulted in the birth of twins in a single biological event. She asked the Court to direct the respondents to treat her first pregnancy as one delivery for maternity leave purposes and to sanction 180 days of maternity leave with all attendant benefits for her second pregnancy.
She was appointed as Junior Lecturer (English) in the respondent Society on Sep 27, 2019. Her first pregnancy resulted in twins on Nov 09, 2023, and she was granted 180 days of maternity leave for that confinement. Thereafter, she became pregnant again and applied for maternity leave for the second delivery, but her request was rejected by the authorities. During the pendency of the writ petition, she delivered her third child.
The petitioner relied on her representation dated Feb 19, 2026. The principal informed her on Feb 28, 2026 that he had no authority to sanction leave beyond 30 days and that long-term maternity leave had to be considered by the Secretary. According to the petitioner, the authorities mechanically applied the two-child norm by counting the twins born in the first pregnancy as two separate surviving children and, on that basis, denied her maternity leave for the second pregnancy.
The respondents argued that under Rule 101(a) of the Telangana Fundamental Rules and G.O.Ms.No.50 dated May 17, 2014, maternity leave is available only to a female government servant having less than two surviving children. Since the petitioner had two surviving children, namely the twins, the respondents contended that she was not eligible for maternity leave for the second pregnancy. They also stated that granting leave contrary to the Rules could invite audit objections and irregular drawal issues.
