Back
"Suffering Is the Same": Madras HC Slams Tamil Nadu's 12-Week Cap on Third Pregnancy Leave
In a strongly worded judgment, the has quashed a Tamil Nadu government order restricting maternity leave for third pregnancies to just 12 weeks, directing full benefits for petitioner Shayee Nisha, a judicial employee. The bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and N. Senthilkumar invoked Supreme Court precedent to affirm that working mothers deserve equal maternity protection regardless of pregnancy number.
From Rejection to Relief: The Petitioner's Plight
Shayee Nisha, employed under the district judiciary in Villupuram, sought maternity leave from , to , for her third pregnancy. Her representation dated , was rejected by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, on , citing G.O.(Ms.)No.18 issued by the on . This order limited third-child maternity leave to 12 weeks, prompting the , to ask her to rejoin by .
Nisha filed W.P.No.16245 of 2026, naming the Registrar General of the , Principal District Judge Villupuram, , and the Tribunal as respondents. The core question: Does a state government order override judicial precedents guaranteeing full maternity leave for third pregnancies?
Petitioner's Pushback vs. State's Stubborn Stance
for Nisha argued that repeated High Court and Supreme Court rulings entitled her client to full leave, labeling the rejection "." She highlighted precedents establishing maternity benefits as a , unaffected by child count.
Respondents, represented by , defended the Principal District Judge's order by relying on G.O.(Ms.)No.18 and a government letter from , claiming no provision exists under for third-child leave. They viewed prior court orders as applying only to specific petitioners ( ), not broadly.
Precedents Pave the Way: Supreme Court Leads, High Court Follows
The court traced the issue to Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204), where the Supreme Court mandated full maternity leave for third pregnancies, deeming restrictions discriminatory. This was echoed in cases:
- B. Ranjitha v. Registrar General (W.P.No.33559 of 2025, ): Allowed full leave following Umadevi .
- P. Mangaiyarkkarasi v. Registrar General (W.P.No.705 of 2026, ): Rebuked narrow interpretations, directing circulation of orders statewide and to the government.
- (implied reference, reinforcing equality).
The bench criticized the government's G.O.(Ms.)No.18 as under , clashing with these rulings and the ( rendered by higher precedents).
Key Observations: Court's Cutting Critique
The judgment pulls no punches with these pivotal quotes:
"If it is a pregnancy, maybe the first pregnancy or the second or the third, suffering would be the same and the pre-delivery as well as the post-delivery care must be taken by the mothers and this equal to all such pregnancies, whether it is the first or second or third. Therefore, no discrimination could be shown by the Government."
"This kind of restriction made by the Government... against the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court cannot be approved by this Court."
"The State Government being a ... the present deviation made by the Government... is not in consonance with the consistent policy taken by the State Government, nor it is in consonance with the law settled..."
These remarks, mirroring media reports like
"Suffering Is Same For All Pregnancies,"
underscore the bench's frustration with recurring rejections despite clear law.
Victory for Mothers: Quashed Order, Full Leave Directed
The court set aside the
, rejection, ordering the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, to grant Nisha full maternity leave
"equal to that of pregnant women of first and second pregnancy, unmindful of G.O.(Ms.)No.18,"
within one week. No costs imposed.
This ruling reinforces maternity rights for government employees, binding district judiciary and state departments. By mandating circulation to judicial heads and the Chief Secretary, it aims to end "pedantic" refusals, promoting uniform compliance with Umadevi . For Tamil Nadu's women workforce, it's a step toward true welfare equality.
