Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 8813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
A.RUBAVATHI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TAMILNADU – Respondent
W.P.No.8166 of 2025|W.M.P.Nos.9148 of 2025|W.M.P.Nos.29532 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Jeyamohan
For the Respondents: Mythreye Chandru
Maternity leave rules must be interpreted purposively as beneficial legislation; a government employee is entitled to maternity leave for a child born after entering service, regardless of whether they had children prior to their employment.
Headnote:The petitioner, a government teacher, sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction maternity leave for her third child, born after she entered government service. The court analyzed the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules and the Maternity Benefit Act, noting that maternity leave provisions are beneficial legislation and must be interpreted through a purposive construction to promote their objects. The central issue was whether a government servant is entitled to maternity leave for a third child if the first two children were born prior to entering service. The court reasoned that the state's objective to control population growth and the objective of providing maternity benefits are not mutually exclusive and must be harmonized. It held that if the child is the first born after entering service, the employee is entitled to the benefit. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the earned leave obtained by the petitioner as maternity leave and refund any recovered amount, subject to the result of W.P.No.43598 of 2025.
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction Maternity Leave to the petitioner by considering her representation dated 17.02.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan
For Respondents : Mrs.Mythreye Chandru for R1 to R4
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction maternity leave to the petitioner by considering her representation dated 17.02.2025.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Post Graduate Assistant (Chemistry) on 01.09.2022 and allotted to Government Higher Secondary School, Pudhupattu, Sangarapuram, Kallakurichi District and was transferred to the fifth respondent School on 24.07.2024. The petitioner gave birth to third child on 26.02.2025 at Salem Poly Clinic and prior to the child birth on 17.02.2025, the petitioner gave representation to the respondents seeking to sanction maternity leave, however, no orders were passed.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that this Court considered similar issue in the case of Malathi.G Vs. The Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, Chennai and others in W.P.No.47991 of 2025 dated 17.12.2025 and, by following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1204 [ Umadevi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others ] which was followed by this Court while granting interim order 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, granted maternity leave to the petitioner therein subject to the result of W.P.No.43598 of 2025.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that during the pendancy of this writ petition, the petitioner due to health condition, obtained earned leave. Hence, this Court may without going into the merits of the case, issue direction to the respondents to treat the earned leave obtained by the petitioner as maternity leave subject to the result of the writ petition in W.P.No.43598 of 2025.
It is useful to extract hereunder the relevant portion of the order of this Court in the case of Malathi.G Vs. The Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, Chennai and others in W.P.No.47991 of 2025 dated 17.12.2025
“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.33539 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 Sectio
