Madras High Court
T.Sathya vs The Dean on 12 April, 2023
W.P(MD)No.4954 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.4954 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.4625 and 4627 of 2023
T.Sathya ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Dean,
Kanyakumari Government Medical College,
Asaripallam, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for the records of the impugned order of the respondent in
Na.Ka.No.7975/Ni3/2022 dated 19.12.2022 and quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the respondent to sanction maternity leave to the
petitioner for a period of 12 months commencing from 07.11.2022 to
06.11.2023
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Villavankothai,
Addl. Government Pleader.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4954 of 2023
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The petitioner had filed this writ petition on the strength of the
order dated 25.03.2022 made in W.P.No.22075 of 2021. The said order
has been subsequently reversed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide
order dated 14.09.2022 in W.A.No.1442 of 2022. The Hon'ble Division
Bench had held as follows:-
“4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record, this
Court finds as under:-
4.1 The writ petitioner had married in the
year 2006 and from the said wedlock had given
birth to two children on two different occasions. In
the year 2017, the said marriage stood dissolved.
The writ petitioner re-married in the year 2018
and from the said second wedlock, she has given
birth to the child, for which she claims benefit of
maternity leave. She claims that, the custody of
two children from the first wedlock are with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4954 of 2023
father of those children. In this factual
background, the claim of the writ petitioner needs
to be weighed vis-a-vis her service conditions and
any other law which may confer any right to the
writ petitioner.
4.2 So far policy of the State is concerned, it
restricts the benefit of maternity leave to two
deliveries / two children. The writ petitioner
therefore could not have asked for and could not
have been granted the benefit of maternity leave
for the third child, as per the policy of the State.
4.3 Grant of maternity leave is not the
fundamental right. It is either a statutory right or
the right which flows from the conditions of
service. Once the rights of the writ petitioner are
governed by the service conditions as applicable
to her, as framed by the State, the Maternity
Benefit Act, 1961 would be inapplicable. This is
the law, going by even the decision of the Supreme
Court of India relied on behalf of the the writ
petitioner in the case of Deepika Singh v Central
Administrative Tribunal and Others (Civil Appeal
No.5308 of 2022 arising from S.L.P.(C) No. 7772
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4954 of 2023
of 2021 dated 16.08.2022), more particularly
para : 17 thereof. Though learned Additional
Advocate General has rightly relied on the
decision of the Uttarkhand High Court in the case
of State of Uttarakhand v Smt.Urmila Manish and
others (Special Appeal No.736 of 2019 dated
17.09.2019), since the subsequent decision of the
Supreme Court also stipulates this, further
discussion qua the decision of the Uttarkhand
High Court is not required. We find that, in the
facts of the case, it would neither be necessary nor
even open to take aid from the Act of 1961, to
explore, whether the writ petitioner was entitled to
the benefit as claimed by her, which is inconsistent
with the policy of the State, which is neither under
challenge nor can be said to be illegal or arbitrary
in any manner. If the reasons contained in the
order under challenge are weighed keeping this in
view, we find that, the order of learned Single
Judge is unsustainable. The same therefore needs
to be quashed and set aside.
4.4 So far the reliance on behalf of the writ
petitioner, on the decision of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in the case of Ruksana v
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4954 of 2023
State of Haryana and others (Civil Writ Petition
No.4229 of 2022 dated 21.04.2011) is concerned,
we find that, the issue no.iv framed by the Court in
the said case, which may have some bearing, is not
answered by it and in any case, we are not in
agreement with other observations made therein.
As against that, according to us, it is the decision
of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of State
of Uttarakhand v Smt.Urmila Manish and others
(Special Appeal No.736 of 2019 dated 17.09.2019)
which sounds to be a good law, more particularly
in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Deepika Singh v Central
Administrative Tribunal and Others (Civil Appeal
No.5308 of 2022 arising from S.L.P.(C) No. 7772
of 2021 dated 16.08.2022), more particularly para
: 17 thereof. In totality, we find that, the writ
petitioner was not entitled to relief as claimed by
her and the judgment and order impugned in this
appeal is unsustainable, which needs to be
quashed and set aside.”
3.Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Division
Bench, the order impugned in this writ petition is sustained and the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4954 of 2023
petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:-
The Dean,
Kanyakumari Government Medical College,
Asaripallam,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4954 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.4954 of 2023
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.4954 of 2023
12.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
