Maternity Leave For Third Child Limited To Twelve Weeks, Rules Madras HC [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has held that a woman government servant with two or more surviving children is entitled to maternity leave for a third child only for a period of twelve weeks, and not for 365 days, under the amended Fundamental Rule 101(A), setting aside a Judicial Magistrate's sanction of a full year's leave and modifying the relief sought in a writ petition accordingly.

A Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice R. Sakthivel was hearing a writ petition filed by an Office Assistant working in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Poonamallee, who had applied for maternity leave for 365 days, for the birth and care of her third child. The Judicial Magistrate had sanctioned the leave in line, and the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, had approved it. However, the District Treasury declined to release salary for the sanctioned period, citing Fundamental Rule 101(A), on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for 365 days' leave for a third child.

Counsel for the petitioner relied on two Division Bench rulings of the High Court including B. Ranjitha versus The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and Shayee Nisha versus Registrar General, High Court, Madras  which had granted full maternity leave for a third child. The first respondent, the Registrar General, also supported the petitioner's claim on the basis that the Judicial Department had sanctioned similar leave following the Ranjitha ruling.

Examining the text of Fundamental Rule 101(A), the Court noted that the first proviso restricts maternity leave to a married woman government servant with less than two surviving children, and that the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, as they stood, contained no provision granting maternity leave for a third child. This position, the Court noted, traced back to a 1993 policy decision under G.O.Ms.No.237 imposing a two-surviving-children norm, subsequently incorporated into the Fundamental Rules by G.O.Ms.No.173 of 1997.

The Court then turned to the Supreme Court's decision in K. Umadevi versus Government of Tamil Nadu, which examined Rule 101(A) alongside the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The Court noted the Supreme Court's finding that maternity benefit is not per se denied to a woman with more than two children, but that a 2017 amendment to Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act caps the entitlement: a woman with less than two surviving children is entitled to a maximum of 26 weeks, while a woman with two or more surviving children is entitled to a maximum of twelve weeks, holding that there is "no ceiling or cap on the number of children to claim maternity benefit," only a reduction in the period of benefit for later children.

The Court recorded that the Government of Tamil Nadu had implemented the Umadevi ruling through G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13 March 2026, amending Rule 101(A) to insert a proviso entitling a married woman government servant with two or more surviving children to maternity leave on full pay for a period not exceeding twelve weeks. Since this amendment gave statutory effect to the Supreme Court's directions, the Court held that the High Court is not expected to grant relief over and above the terms of G.O.Ms.No.18.

Addressing the Division Bench rulings relied on by the petitioner, the Court held that those judgments could not be followed as precedent in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Umadevi and its subsequent implementation through G.O.Ms.No.18, holding that the High Court, in exercise of judicial review, cannot grant relief contrary to a government policy decision issued pursuant to a binding Supreme Court ruling.

The Court accordingly held that the relief sought in the writ petition could not be granted, but directed that the petitioner be granted the eligible benefit of twelve weeks' maternity leave on full pay as per the amended Rule 101(A), following the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.18. 

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs, and the Registrar General was directed to communicate the order to Principal District Judges for circulation among judicial officers.

Appearances: Ms. G. Priyadharshini, Advocates appeared for the petitioner; Mr. K. Umesh Rao, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1; Ms. D.R. Gouri, Government Counsel, appeared for Respondent No.2.

Case Title: S. Divya versus The Registrar General, Madras High Court & Anr. [WP No.40841 of 2025]

[Read Order]