IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 30.08.2022 DELIVERED ON : 14.09.2022 CORAM :

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY and The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN W.A.No.1442 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.9312 of 2022

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Principal Secretary to Government Human Resources Management Department, (Earlier known as Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department), Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

3.The Chief Educational Officer, School Educational Department, Dharmapuri District – 636 701.

4.The Headmaster Government Higher Secondary School, P.Gollapatti, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District – 636 809. ..Appellants Vs K.Umadevi .. Respondent Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 25.03.2022 made in W.P.No.22075 of 2021.

For Appellants : Mr.V.Arun Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.P.Raja Rajeswari Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Arun Anbumani JUDGMENT Per : PARESH UPADHYAY, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated

25.03.2022 recorded on W.P.No.22075 of 2021. This appeal is by the State Authorities - respondents in the writ petition.

2. Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant State Authorities has submitted that, the directions contained in the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge is erroneous on more than one counts. It is submitted that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 could not be applied qua the government employees and in any case, the policy of the State is much liberal as compared to the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. It is submitted that, any deviation from the policy of the State would create tremendous pressure on the Government exchequer and the human resources and therefore the order of learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with. Reliance is placed, inter-alia on the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand v Smt.Urmila Manish and others (Special Appeal No.736 of 2019 dated 17.09.2019) to contend that, the provisions contained in the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 can not be brought into consideration, while considering the claim of the Government servants under the Service Rules. It is submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, learned advocate for the contesting respondent / original writ petitioner has submitted that, though the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 can not be said to be applicable ipso facto, learned Single Judge can not be said to be in error by taking support therefrom since the peculiar facts of the case warranted harmonious reading of the policy of the State keeping in view the Central Legislation. In support of this submission, learned advocate for the writ petitioner has taken this Court through the material on record and the averments made in the writ petition to point out the personal circumstances of the writ petitioner, including her separation from the first wedlock, custody of the two children from the first wedlock being with the father of those children, her re-marriage and the first child from the second wedlock. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ruksana v State of Haryana and others (Civil Writ Petition No.4229 of 2022 dated 21.04.2011) reported in 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 4666. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepika Singh v Central Administrative Tribunal and Others (Civil Appeal No.5308 of 2022 arising from S.L.P.(C) No. 7772 of 2021 dated 16.08.2022). It is further submitted that the G.Os. sought to be relied by the State can be said to be in the form of the contemplated decision of the State, which have not been brought in as amendment to the statutory rules and that the writ petitioner was entitled to what is granted by learned Single Judge. It is submitted that t