IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI AND WMP NO. 3091 OF 2026 T.Tamizhmathi Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Rep. By its Chairman Managing Director, NPDRR Maaligai, 10th Floor, No 144 Anna Salai, Chennai 02

2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel )

Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited, Npkrr Maaligai, 8th Floor, No 144 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

3.The Superintending Engineer Kallakurichi Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Lions Club Building, Kallakurichi 606 202.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER; Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondnt bearing Ku A No 10645 / 597 / Ma. Po/ Ka. Mi pa Va / Kalai Ni. A / Ni. Pi I / U. 1 / Ko. Ma E / 2025 dated 24.12.2025 quash the same, and consequently direct the respondnets to grant maternity leave to the petitioner for the period form

27.11.2025 to 26.11.2026 within all attendant service and monetary benefits.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.D.Balamurugan For Respondent: Mr.C.Manoharan

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondnt bearing Ku A No 10645 / 597 / Ma. Po/ Ka. Mi pa Va / Kalai Ni. A / Ni. Pi I / U. 1 / Ko. Ma E / 2025 dated 24.12.2025 and consequently direct the respondents to grant maternity leave to the petitioner for the period form 27.11.2025 to 26.11.2026 within all attendant service and monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner is working as the Manager at the office of the Superintending Engineer, Kallakurichi Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO and she was appointed on 06.07.2012 and joined duty on 10.07.2025. The petitioner gave birth to her first child prior to her entry into service. The petitioner's second pregnancy occurred during service and the petitioner was granted maternity leave. It is the case of the petitioner that she became pregnant again and she applied for maternity leave for third respondent vide application dated 02.12.2025. The said request was denied by the respondents 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.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 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 fl