IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI G.Thilagavathi W/o Jawahar, No 28/13, Maanam Partha Jamendhar street, Kosapettai, Vellore-632 001 ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009

2. The Joint Commissioner (State Tax)

(Intelligence)

Vellore Intelligence Division, Office of the Joint Commissioner (State Tax)

(Intelligence)

No 4 Bharathiyar Salai, Fort round road, Vellore- 632 001 ..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant maternity leave to the petitioner from 04.02.2026 to

3.02.2027 along with all attendant service and monetary benefits, by considering the petitioners representation dated 10.12.2025 For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Arunkumar For Respondent(s): Ms.P.Selvi, Government Advocate

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

29.12.2025 passed Na.Ka.A1/5008/2025 in by the second 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 04.02.2026 to 03.02.2027.

2. The petitioner is employed as Junior Assistant under the control of the second respondent. 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 second respondent vide application dated 10.12.2025. The said request was denied by the second respondent on the ground that the Government servant is not entitled for maternity leave for the birth of third child.

3. The issue as to whether a Government Servant would be entitled for maternity leave for the birth of third child is no more res integra, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33559 of 2025 dated 04.09.2025 in the case of B.Ranjitha Vs. the Registrar General, High court of Madras, Chennai and others, 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 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-

"33.2. Thereafter, the matter travelled to this Court. This Court referred to Rule 43 of the 1972 Rules which deals with maternity leave. As per Rule 43(1), only a female Government servant with less than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave. This Court opined that provisions of Rule 43(1) must be imbued with a purposive construction. Since it is a beneficial legislation, it has to be construed with a purpose oriented approach and must receive a liberal construction to promote its objects. The courts must bridge the gap between law and society through the use of purposive interpretation. Though this Court acknowledged that the Maternity Benefit Act has no application to PGIMER as an establishment, yet for the purpose of adopting an approach which furthers legislative policy, referred to the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act to derive some guidance therefrom.

After an exhaustive analysis of Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, this Court observed that the said Act was enacted to secure women’s right to maternity leave and to afford women with as much flexibility as possible to live an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker. Thereafter, this Court referred to the various international treaties and conventions.

33.3. In the facts of that case, this Court observed that spouse of the appellant had a prior marriage which had ended as a result of the death of his wife after which the appellant married him. However, what is relevant and i