Government employees are entitled to maternity leave even for a third child, as maternity benefits must be harmonized with population control measures and viewed as a natural incident of life.

PRAYER :

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pursuant to the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 in Na.Ka.No.7601/A1/2025 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and sanction maternity leave to the petitioner for the period from 07.10.2025 to 06.10.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vadivalagia Nambi

For Respondents : Ms.Mythreye Chandru

Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 passed in Na.Ka.No.7601/A1/2025 by the third respondent on the ground that the petitioner was due for delivery for third pregnancy and for a consequential direction to the respondents to sanction maternity leave to the petitioner for the period from 07.10.2025 to 06.10.2026.

The petitioner is employed as B.T.Assistant in Government High School, Thozhuvanthangal, Kallakurichi District. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is already having two children and she became pregnant again and she applied for maternity leave to the fourth respondent

first marriage would not impinge upon the entitlement of the appellant to avail maternity leave for her sole biological child……

Thus, this Court was categorical in declaring that the factum of appellant’s spouse having two biological children from his first marriage would not impinge upon the entitlement of the appellant to avail maternity leave for her sole biological child. Grant of child care leave to the appellant for the two children of her spouse from his previous marriage cannot be used to disentitle her to maternity leave under Rule 43 of the 1972 Rules . In the context of employment, child birth has to be construed as a natural incident of life and, hence, provisions for maternity leave must be construed in that perspective. Observing that when courts are confronted with such situations, they would do well to attempt to give effect to the purpose of the law in question rather than to prevent its application.

Insofar the present case is concerned it is true that appellant has two biological children out of her first wedlock. But that was before entry into her service. Post entry into service and from her subsisting marriage, this is her first child. It has come on record that the two children out of her first wedlock are not residing with her but with their father, who is having their custody.

Policy of the State to arrest population growth by resorting to various population control measures is certainly a laudable objective. So is the objective of granting maternity benefit to women employees. The object of having two child norm as part of the measures to control population growth in the country and the object of providing maternity benefit to women employees including maternity leave in circumstances such as in the present case are not mutually exclusive. The two must be harmonized in a purposive and rationale manner to achieve the social objective. " (Emphasis supplied)

Following the said judgment, this Court in the case of T.R. Lakshmi vs. the Secretary to Government, Human Resources Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and others in W.P.No.43598 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025, has passed an interim order granting the petitioner maternity leave for the birth of third child. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder:

''There shall be a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to avail the Maternity Leave as applicable to other pregnant women in case of their first or second pregnancy with all other service beneifts arising out of maternity leave for which the petitioner would be entitled to.

(ii) The validity of proviso to Rule 101 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules would be decided later on in the final hearing of the writ petition.''

By virtue of the decision of this Court in Ranjitha & Lakshmi Case (Supra), the petitioner would be entit