CHENNAI: In a significant judgment that reinforces reproductive rights and labor welfare, the Madras High Court has reiterated that a woman employee cannot be denied maternity leave for her third pregnancy. The Court held that the right to maternity benefits is a settled legal principle, and administrative rules cannot be used to override judicial precedents.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed set aside an order issued by the High Court’s own Registry, which had rejected a maternity leave application from one of its employees.
The petitioner, P. Mangaiyarkkarasi, an employee of the Madras High Court, applied for maternity leave for a period of one year—from August 8, 2025, to August 7, 2026—for her third confinement.
However, on December 15, 2025, the Registrar (Management) rejected her request. The Registry justified this rejection by citing a clarification issued by the Tamil Nadu Human Resources Management (F.R.III) Department in August 2025. This government clarification stated that the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules do not provide for maternity leave for a third child.
Left with no other option, the petitioner was forced to exhaust her earned leave, medical leave, and unearned leave to cover her period of absence. She subsequently approached the High Court through a writ petition, arguing that the denial was illegal, arbitrary, and in direct violation of earlier decisions by the same Court.
The primary question before the Court was whether a third pregnancy disqualifies a government servant from receiving maternity benefits under the prevailing rules and judicial interpretations.
The Bench noted that this issue was no longer res integra (a point of law that has not yet been decided). The Court pointed out that another Division Bench had already addressed this exact issue in September 2025 (W.P. No. 33559 of 2025). That decision had followed the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, which held that maternity benefits are fundamental to a woman's dignity and health.
Justice R. Suresh Kumar, who was also a part of the previous Bench that decided the issue, observed that the legal principles governing maternity leave for a third child are meant for "general application" across all departments.
The High Court Registry had taken a narrow stand, arguing that the earlier Court orders granting maternity leave for a third child were specific only to the petitioners in those particular cases (judgment in personam).
The Division Bench strongly criticized this reasoning. The Court clarified that when a High Court decides a point of law regarding service benefits or fundamental rights, it becomes a judgment in rem—meaning it applies to all persons in similar circumstances across the state.
The Bench remarked:
"This kind of interpretation sought to be given by the second respondent [the Registry] cannot be appreciated. The approach is pedantic and legally unsustainable."
The Court expressed disappointment that despite successive judgments from different Division Benches on December 17, 2025, and earlier, the Registry continued to rely on a government department's "clarification" instead of following the law of the land as declared by the judiciary.
Recognizing that many women employees across Tamil Nadu might be facing similar hurdles due to the government’s August 2025 clarification, the Court issued broad administrative directions:
- Grant of Benefits: The Court ordered the Registry to grant maternity leave to P. Mangaiyarkkarasi for the requested period (August 2025 to August 2026). All service and monetary benefits associated with this leave must be released within one week.
- Adjusting Leaves: The leaves already exhausted by the petitioner (medical/earned leave) must be restored to her account, and the period must be treated as maternity leave.
- District Judiciary: The Registrar General was directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to all judicial officers heading units in the district judiciary across Tamil Nadu to ensure strict compliance in the future.
- Government Departments: The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu was directed to ensure that all secretaries and heads of departments adhere to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court regarding maternity benefits.
The judgment serves as a stern reminder to administrative authorities that executive clarifications and departmental rules cannot bypass judicial rulings. By ordering statewide circulation of the order, the Madras High Court has sought to ensure that no woman employee in the state is forced to litigate for a benefit that is already her legal right.
- Case Title: P. Mangaiyarkkarasi vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and Another
- Case No: W.P. No. 705 of 2026
- Date of Order: January 21, 2026
- Bench: Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed