Cannot Interpret Maternity Leave Rules To Deny Leave For Third Pregnancy Even If Claimed For First Time: Madras High Court

“The Rule has to be interpreted in such a manner that a women Government employee would be entitled to seek maternity leave only twice during her service period and it cannot be interpreted in such a manner that the State would be entitled to deny the maternity leave, even if it is claimed for the first time, citing third pregnancy,” the court said.

Justice R Vijayakumar observed that the legislative intent of the Fundamental Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government was to discourage having more children considering the health of the women, the financial constraints involved, the population control policy of the Government and the fact that the State exchequer may be burdened with more financial stress by extending maternity leave for many children. The court suggested that the rules should be given a purposive interpretation and when a female employee seeks maternity leave for the first time, the same could not be denied merely citing a third pregnancy.

“The legislative intent of the said Fundamental Rule is to discourage having more children considering the health condition of the woman and financial constrains involved in bringing up the said children. It is also based upon the population control policy of the concerned Government. Limiting the maternity leave to two children is also based upon the fact that the State exchequer may not be burdened with more financial stress by extending maternity leave for many children. Therefore, a purposive in interpretation has to be given to achieve the object of the above said rules,” the court added.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Kohila, a staff nurse working in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai challenging the hospital's decision to deny her maternity leave and the medical fitness certificate of the Medical Board certifying that she is fit to resume duty.

Kohila was initially appointed as a staff nurse on a contract basis in October 2008 and was made permanent staff in June 2018 with effect from August 2014. While she was working on contract basis, Kohila got married and gave birth to two children in 2009 and 2012. However, she did not claim any maternity leave for both these pregnancies as she was a contract staff.

In 2020, Kohila got divorced and later remarried. When she conceived through her second marriage, she applied for a maternity leave for a period of 1 year but the application was rejected by the Administrative Officer and she was instructed to submit an application mentioning any other type of leave which she wished to avail. Subsequently, she made another application seeking 90 days of medical leave, 169 days earned leave on medical certificate and 106 days leave on loss of pay on medical certificate totalling 365 days. This request was also accepted and she was referred to a medical board which concluded that she was fit to resume duty and that her request was not justified.

It was argued that since Kohila was availing maternity leave for the first time, such a benefit could not be rejected. The counsel also cited a decision of the Kerala High Court to contend that when the maternity benefit has not been availed for the first two children, the benefit claimed for the third child arising out of the second wedlock could be permitted.

On the other hand, the Government Advocate relied on Rule 101 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules and argued that maternity leave could be granted only to a woman government servant with less than 2 surviving children. Thus, since Kohila's request was not provided for under the service rules, her request was rejected.

The court noted that in the present case, it was undisputed that the petitioner had not availed maternity leave for her first two pregnancies. Thus, the court opined that her right to have a child through the second marriage could not be curtailed citing rules especially when the leave was claimed for the first time, causing no strain to the state exchequer.

“For the first time, the petitioner is availing the maternity leave for her child born through the second wedlock. In such circumstances, the right of a women employee to have a child through her second wedlock cannot be curtailed invoking the Maternity Leave Rules. That apart, when they are going to extend the maternity leave to the petitioner for the first time, the State exchequer is not put to any strain,” the court noted.

The court further noted that the authorities had behaved harshly by subjecting her to a medical board to avail leave under other eligible categories. The court also found it strange that the medical board had found her fit to resume duty on September 25, 2024 when her expected date of delivery was September 30, 2024.

Thus, the court concluded that Kohila was entitled to seek maternity leave and thus set aside the impugned orders. The court further directed the authorities to confer eligible maternity leave to Kohila based on her application within 12 weeks.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Malaikani

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. T. Amjadkhan Government Advocate

Case Title: C.Kohila v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 23

Case No: W.P.(MD).No.23455 of 2024