Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37596
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Suresh Kumar, N. Senthilkumar, JJ
Shayee Nisha – Appellant
Versus
Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai – Respondent
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Ms.K.Swetha
For Respondent(s): Mr.Arun Anbumani
Full maternity leave entitled for third pregnancy; government restrictions invalid per Supreme Court.
Headnote:The court examined G.O.(Ms.)No.18, Human Resources Management (FR-III) Department dated 13.03.2026, restricting maternity leave for third pregnancy to twelve weeks, alongside Article 162 of the Constitution and Section 5(3) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Central Act 53 of 1961). Petitioner, a judicial employee, sought maternity leave for third pregnancy, rejected by Principal District Judge citing the G.O., confirmed by tribunal. Court found rejection illegal, holding full maternity benefits applicable irrespective of pregnancy number. Issues framed as entitlement to full maternity leave for third pregnancy despite G.O. restrictions. Ratio: Supreme Court in Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204) mandates full benefits; G.O. restrictions invalid as discriminatory, violating welfare principles; prior Division Bench orders binding, not limited to specific petitioners. Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed; directed grant of full maternity leave as for first/second pregnancies.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rejection of third pregnancy maternity leave challenged. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. supreme court and prior benches mandate full benefits. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. g.o. restriction discriminatory and invalid. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. impugned order quashed; full leave directed. (Para 11 , 12) |
For Petitioner(s): Ms.K.Swetha For Respondent(s): Mr.Arun Anbumani ORDER (Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
Prayer sought herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the entire records connected with the rejection of maternity leave dated 27.03.2026 passed by the second respondent, which is confirmed and asking the petitioner to rejoin on 27.04.2026 by the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to grant maternity leave from 02.02.2026 to 01.02.2027 and its benefits by considering the representation dated
30.01.2026.
2. The writ petitioner sought maternity leave for her third pregnancy, which was refused or rejected through the order impugned dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, by citing G.O.(Ms.)No.18, Human Resources Management (FR-III)
Department dated 13.03.2026.
3. Heard Ms.K.Swetha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
4. It is to be noted that the issue is as to whether the pregnant woman/employee would be entitled to get full maternity benefits, that is full leave, even for third pregnancy. That issue is no more res integra, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already taken up the issue and decided it in the case of Umadevi vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 5. This was followed by a Division Bench of this Court, where one of us (RSKJ) is a party, in the case of B.Ranjitha Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai and Ors., W.P.No.33559 of 2025; Dated: 04.09.2025.. Despite these orders, since yet another case has also come before another Division Bench of this Court, where one of us (RSKJ) is a party, in the case of P.Mangaiyarkkarasi Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai and Anr., W.P.No.705 of 2026; Dated: 21.01.2026., where the following orders are passed:
“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 writ petition 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
