Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 2935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Suresh Kumar, Shamim Ahmed, JJ
P.Mangaiyarkkarasi – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar General – Respondent
W.P.No.705 of 2026|W.M.P.No.865 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Dinesh
For the Respondents: Mrs.Karthika Ashok
An order in rem with a statutorily enforced legal principle cannot be restrictively construed as an order in personam by administrative authorities.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The judgment interprets the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules pertaining to maternity leave entitlements for government servants. Facts of the Case: The petitioner, a government servant, challenged an order denying maternity leave for her third pregnancy based on a 25.08.2025 clarification from the Tamil Nadu government, which stated no statutory provision existed to grant such leave.
Findings of Court:
A Division Bench applied the principle from the Supreme Court decision in Umadevi's case (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204) to hold that the denial was impermissible, following earlier Division Benches that granted relief in identical circumstances.
Issues: Whether government servants are entitled to maternity leave for a third child/pregnancy, and whether prior judicial orders granting such leave apply only to the petitioner in that case or constitute an order in rem applicable to similarly situated employees.
Ratio Decidendi: An order in rem establishing a legal principle (from Umadevi) cannot be restrictively interpreted as applying only in personam, and administrative authorities must comply with such binding judicial interpretations rather than relying on contrary administrative clarifications.
Result: The impugned order is set aside with directions to grant maternity leave benefits for 08.08.2025 to 07.08.2026, with all attendant service benefits, and to circulate the judgment to ensure future compliance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. denial of maternity leave for third pregnancy based on administrative clarification (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. division bench decision in rem applies to all similarly situated employees (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. pedantic administrative interpretation undermines judicial orders in rem (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. maternity leave granted with directions for systemic compliance (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. petition allowed without costs (Para 13) |
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the second respondent by which the plea raised by the petitioner for grant of Maternity Leave for third confinement or third pregnancy of the petitioner has been turned down.
2. The reasons stated by the second respondent for passing the said impugned order dated 15.12.2025 is that, the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Human Resources Management (F.R.III) Department, vide letter dated 25.08.2025 has clarified that, there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules for grant of Maternity Leave to permanent / not permanent married woman Government Servants for their third child / confinement.
3. In this context, it is to be noted that, already the issue had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33559 of 2025, where one of us (RSKJ) is a party. In the said writ petition also, similar facts were confronted and the Division Bench passed a final order in the said writpetition on 04.09.2025 where after following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204, the Division Bench had allowed the said writ petition.
4. However, in the impugned order dated 15.12.2025, the second respondent has stated that, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.33559 of 2025 is applicable only to the petitioner therein.
5. This kind of interpretation of the judicial order which is an order in rem as the principle as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case cited supra since having been followed in the said judgment, it cannot be stated as if that, the said judgment would apply only to the said petitioner, by stating the same, the officer concerned, i.e., second respondent is trying to give her own interpretation as if that the said judgment is judgment in personam. That kind of interpretation sought to be given by the second respondent cannot be appreciated.
6. It is further to be noted that, yet another case has come before this Bench in W.P.No.48656 of 2025 almost confronting the very similar facts and that writ petition was also allowed by order dated 17.12.2025 following thedictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case cited supra as well as in the case of B.Rajintha Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai and others in W.P.No.33559 of 2025 and the said writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.48656 of 2025 has also been allowed.
7. When two Division Benches successively passed orders on the same issue with the similar facts where also the respective writ petitioners request for sanctioning of the Maternity Leave for the third pregnancy since has been turned down has been dealt with and accordingly, the said writ petitions were allowed, we expect that, the present respondents, i.e., High Court Registry and also the District Judiciary should understand the legal principle enunciated in those decisions and pass appropriate orders.
8. Despite the orders having been passed and having taken note of the orders with full knowledge of the import of the order passed already in W.P.No.33559 of 2025, the second respondent still wanted to overcome the same by giving credence only to the letter given by the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Human Resources Management (F.R.III) Department, dated 25.08.2025 and also by stating that, the order passed by the Court would only an order in personam and would be made applicable only to the p
