1. Government employee denied maternity leave for child from re-marriage; prior children from first marriage not in her custody; impugned Division Bench order reversed Single Judge's direction granting leave. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
K. Umadevi – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 20178 of 2022)
Decided On : 23-05-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Supreme Court of India recognized maternity leave as a reproductive right under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that restrictions on such entitlements must align with international standards and should not obstruct the fundamental right to reproductive health and dignity (!) (!) .
The case involved a woman employee who had children from her previous marriage and was seeking maternity leave for her first child from her current marriage. The Court clarified that her prior children, who are in custody of their father, do not disqualify her from maternity benefits for her current pregnancy, as the benefit is linked to her reproductive rights and circumstances at the time of her pregnancy (!) (!) (!) .
The applicable rules for state government employees restrict maternity leave to women with less than two surviving children. However, the Court interpreted these rules in a purposive manner, considering the broader context of reproductive rights and the purpose of maternity benefits, and held that the woman’s previous children, who are not in her custody, should not be counted against her entitlement (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that maternity leave is a vital aspect of human dignity, health, and gender equality, and is supported by international treaties and conventions that recognize motherhood and childhood as entitled to special care and assistance (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the restriction based on the number of children should be harmonized with the social objective of promoting reproductive rights and population control policies. It highlighted that such policies are not mutually exclusive and should be balanced in a rational manner (!) .
The Court reversed the decision of the lower appellate authority, which had denied the woman maternity leave based on the existing rules, and directed that she be granted maternity leave under the relevant rules within two months. The Court also clarified that maternity benefits should be granted in accordance with the purpose of the law, which is to support women’s health, dignity, and reproductive rights (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that maternity benefits are not merely service conditions but are rooted in constitutional rights and international commitments, and should be provided in a manner that respects the reproductive autonomy and dignity of women, regardless of their past children or custody arrangements.
1. Government employee denied maternity leave for child from re-marriage; prior children from first marriage not in her custody; impugned Division Bench order reversed Single Judge's direction granting leave. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
2. Appellant claims maternity leave for child from re-marriage as first child of present wedlock; prior children not in her custody; respondents argue State policy restricts benefit to two children. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Set aside Division Bench judgment; declare appellant entitled to maternity leave under FR 101(a); maternity benefits to be released within two months. (Para 17 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
Yes. Children born from a prior marriage who are not in the mother's custody should not be counted as surviving children for purposes of maternity leave entitlement under FR 101(a). The benefit must be granted by adopting a liberal interpretation. (Para 6 , 17 , 34 , 37 )
No. The Act does not deny maternity benefit to a woman employee having more than two children. It only reduces the leave period from 26 weeks to 12 weeks for those with two or more surviving children; there is no cap on the number of children. (Para 19 , 20 )
Yes. Reproductive rights are recognized as a facet of Article 21. The right of every woman to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the State is central to human dignity. Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits and reproductive rights. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
Yes. The policy of the State to arrest population growth and the objective of granting maternity benefit to women employees including maternity leave are not mutually exclusive. The two must be harmonized in a purposive and rational manner. (Para 35 )
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
This civil appeal by special leave takes exception to the judgment and order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (High Court) in W.A. No. 1442 of 2022.
2. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.09.2022 (impugned judgment), Division Bench set aside the judgment and order dated 25.03.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No. 22075 of 2021 ( K. Umadevi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others ) whereby direction was issued to the State to sanction maternity leave to the appellant. By reversing the aforesaid decision, Division Bench held that appellant was not entitled to the benefit of maternity leave as claimed by her.
3. Relevant facts may be briefly noted.
4. Appellant married A. Suresh in the year 2006. From the said wedlock, two children were born: first one in 2007 and the second one in 2011. She entered government service in December, 2012 as English Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, P. Gollapatti, Dharmapuri District in the State of Tamil Nadu. Marriage between the two was dissolved in the year 2017. It is stated that the two children born out of the said wedlock are in the custody of the former husband.
4.1. On 12.09.2018, appellant married M. Rajkumar. Due to conceivement from her second marriage, appellant applied for grant of maternity leave to the authorities for the period from 17.08.2021 to 13.05.2022 (nine months) which was inclusive of both pre-and-post-natal periods.
4.2. The third respondent vide order dated 28.08.2021 rejected the prayer of the appellant. It was stated that as per Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a) which is applicable to state government employees of Tamil Nadu, maternity leave is available to women state government employees having less than two surviving children. There is no provision for grant of maternity leave for the third child on account of appellant’s re- marriage.
4.3. Aggrieved by rejection of her request for grant of maternity leave, appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court which was registered as W.P. No. 22075 of 2021. A learned Single Judge of the High Court vide the judgment and order dated 25.03.2022 held that appellant was entitled to grant of maternity benefit. Therefore, rejection of her claim for grant of such benefit was illegal. As such, order dated 28.08.2021 was set aside. Respondents were directed to sanction maternity leave to the appellant as admissible in terms of the latest G.O.Ms. No. 84 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-III) Department dated 23.08.2021. Consequential decision was directed to be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. Writ petition was accordingly allowed.
4.4. Government of Tamil Nadu and its officers filed intra- court appeal being W.A. No. 1442 of 2022. A Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 14.09.2022 found the judgment of the learned Single Judge to be unsustainable. Division Bench held that the appellant was not entitled to maternity relief as claimed by her. Accordingly, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.03.2022 has been set aside. Consequently, the writ appeal has been allowed.
5. This came to be assailed before this Court in the related special leave petition. Notice was issued by this Court on 28.11.2022. In the hearing held on 11.02.2025, leave was granted.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Division Bench was not at all justified in reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge. Division Bench erred in holding that maternity benefit could not be provided to the appellant. Prior to her entry into service, she had begotten two children from her first marriage but their custody is with the father. Conceivement of a child out of her re-marriage which, in fact, is her first child from the present wedlock cannot be treated as her third child, thus, disentitling he
AI
Maternity leave is a reproductive right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and restrictive state policies must not obstruct such entitlements, as aligned with international standards.
Maternity leave under CCS(Leave) Rules Rule 43 granted for third biological child via purposive interpretation, limited to 12 weeks guided by Maternity Benefit Act, considering divorce, child disabil....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a female government servant to maternity leave under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972, emphasizing a pur....
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 does not apply to government servants, and state policy restricting maternity leave for the third child is valid.
The court established that maternity leave regulations should be interpreted liberally to support women's rights, emphasizing that eligibility criteria should consider only children born during the s....
Point of Law : According to Article 42 of Constitution of India, “State is required to make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief”.
Denial of maternity leave to female employees on contract basis violates their constitutional rights to life and equality, mandating equal maternity benefits for all women.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top