Case Note | Maternity Leave | Public Employment
The ruling reinforces that maternity benefits flow from constitutional protections and settled judicial precedent, not administrative clarifications.
What the Court held
The Madras High Court ruled that denying maternity leave to women government employees for a third pregnancy is legally unsustainable. A Division Bench of Justices R Suresh Kumar and Shamim Ahmed set aside a rejection order passed in December 2025, which relied on a government clarification stating that the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules did not provide maternity leave for a third child.
Key finding
The Court agreed with the petitioner that the government’s interpretation was wrong and reiterated that earlier judgments on the issue operate generally, and are not confined to the facts of a single individual case.
The Bench criticised authorities for repeatedly rejecting maternity leave requests despite awareness of prior rulings. It observed that reliance on administrative letters while ignoring binding judicial decisions reflected a narrow and rigid approach. The Court described the repeated denial of maternity benefits as an agonising fact that should not continue.
Relief granted
The Court directed grant of maternity leave from 8 August 2025 to 7 August 2026, along with all related service benefits, and ordered completion of paperwork within one week.
System-level direction to prevent repeat errors
To avoid recurring denials, the Court instructed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to circulate the ruling to judicial officers across the State. The objective is uniform application of the settled legal position while processing maternity leave for third pregnancies.
Supreme Court perspective: constitutional protection over rigid rule limits
A related legal thread arises from the Supreme Court’s approach in cases where maternity leave is denied solely because the pregnancy is a third child. The argument typically relies on service rules such as Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which restrict maternity leave to two surviving children.
Core constitutional themes highlighted by the Court
The right to dignity, motherhood, and reproductive health is treated as part of Article 21. Subordinate service rules must be read in a constitutionally compliant manner and cannot defeat fundamental protections. The Court also emphasised gender sensitivity and the unreasonable burden created when maternity support is denied.
Why third-pregnancy cases create confusion in practice
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 contains language that reduces the maximum maternity benefit period to twelve weeks for a woman having two or more surviving children. The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 retained the same formulation. The Code on Social Security, 2020 continues a similar structure in its maternity chapter.
Practical takeaway
Administrative authorities should not treat third-pregnancy requests as automatically ineligible. Decisions must align with binding judicial interpretations and constitutional principles, and departments should avoid repeating rejections already held to be unsustainable by courts.
Support
For more assistance and support, you may write to:
marketing@karmamgmt.com
Share This News