Can't Deny Maternity Benefit For Third Pregnancy Of Public Servants: Madras High Court Reiterates

The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed also commented that, though similar orders have been passed by the Supreme Court and the high court repeatedly, the authorities failed to understand the intent of the previous orders. The court thus directed the High Court registry to circulate the order to all judicial officers heading the District Judiciary throughout the state to ensure stricter compliance.

The court also directed the Chief Secretary to strictly adhere to the principles previously laid down by the court and communicate the order to the Secretaries of Government and Heads of departments for strict compliance.

The court was hearing a plea by Magaiyarkkarasi, an employee of the Madras High Court, seeking maternity leave for her third pregnancy. The Registrar (Management) of the High Court had denied her maternity leave, prompting her to file the present plea.

The authorities informed the court that maternity benefit was denied based on the order of the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Human Resources Management (F.R.III) Department dated August 25, 2025, clarifying that there was no provision to grant maternity leave to permanent/temporary government servants for their third child/confinement as per the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules.

The court noted that though the Rules were not in favour of granting maternity benefits for a third pregnancy, the courts have previously taken a positive approach and directed the employers to grant maternity benefits for a third pregnancy.

When the respondents argued that the previous orders were only applicable to the petitioner in those cases and could not be applied in all cases, the bench noted that the Supreme Court, in Umadevi Vs. The  Government of Tamil Nadu and others had taken a similar view. The court thus remarked that the interpretation sought to be given by the authorities could not be accepted.

The court added that when two division benches had successively granted maternity leave for third pregnancy, the High Court registry and the District Judiciary should have understood the legal principle and passed appropriate orders.

“When two Division Benches successively passed orders on the same issue with the similar facts where also the respective writ petitioners request for sanctioning of the Maternity Leave for the third pregnancy since has been turned down has been dealt with and accordingly, the said writ petitions were allowed, we expect that, the present respondents, i.e., High Court Registry and also the District Judiciary should understand the legal principle enunciated in those decisions and pass appropriate orders,” the court said.

The court added that the approach taken by the authorities, in interpreting the previous orders of the court as only orders in personam was pedantic and could not be appreciated.

The court thus set aside the order of the Registrar (Management) and directed the High Court to extend maternity benefit to the employee with all attendant benefits within one week.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Dinesh

Counsel for Respondent: Mrs. Karthika Ashok

Case Title: P Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42

Case No: W.P.No.705 of 2026