Woman Govt Employee Entitled To Only 12 Weeks' Maternity Leave For Third Child: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice R Sakthivel observed that a recent Government Order issued by the Tamil Nadu government, which amended Fundamental Rule 101(A) of the Tamil Nadu Government, applicable to government employees, was in line with the order of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi v Government of Tamil Nadu, which had restricted the benefit to 12 weeks.

Noting that the High Court could not grant relief which was over and beyond the terms and conditions of the Fundamental Rules, the court dismissed the plea of a woman, seeking 365 days' maternity leave for her third child.

“The Government Order, amending Fundamental Rule 101(A) was issued in pursuance to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the High Court is not expected to grant the relief over and above the terms and conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13.03.2026 which was issued implementing the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Fundamental Rule was also amended and therefore, the said Rule is to be followed in respect of the female government employee for grant of maternity leave for third child,” the court said.

The court was considering a plea filed by Divya, who was serving as an Office Assistant in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Poonamallee, against the order of the Treasury Officer, Thiruvallur District Treasury, refusing to sanction 365 days' maternity leave.

The petitioner submitted that on June 14, 2025, she gave birth to her third child and had applied for maternity leave of 365 days, from May 26, 2025, to May 25, 2026, for delivery and baby care. She submitted that the maternity leave was sanctioned by the Judicial Magistrate and the Principal District Judge.

Subsequently, when the salary bills were presented to the Treasury, the Treasury turned down the bills citing Fundamental Rule 101(A), on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for maternity leave of 365 days for the third child. Against this, the present petition was filed.

Citing previous orders of the court, the petitioner argued that she was eligible for maternity leave of 365 days, and the objections raised by the treasury were not in line with the orders of the High Court.

The court noted that earlier, there was no provision in the Fundamental Rules to grant maternity leave to female employees for third child. However, in 2025, the Supreme Court considered the issue and granted relief to female employees for grant of maternity leave for third child. The bench noted that in the same decision, the Supreme Court had restricted the benefit to 12 weeks for the third child.

The court noted that following the Supreme Court's order, the state of Tamil Nadu had issued a Government Order, amending Rule 101(A) and adding a proviso with respect to maternity leave for a third child.

Though the petitioner cited previous orders of the High Court, the bench noted that the decisions could not be followed as precedents in view of the order of the Supreme Court and the subsequent amendments made to the Fundamental Rules.

Thus, noting that the petitioner was not eligible for the relief sought, the court disposed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. G. Priyadharshini

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. K. Umesh Rao, D. R. Gouri, Government Counsel

Case Title: S Divya v The Registrar General and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

Case No: WP No. 40841 of 2025