Madras High Court
S.Selvi vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 25 August, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.(MD) No.2444 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.(MD) No.2444 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.14034 & 14035 of 2025
S.Selvi ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Additional Chief Secretary
Health and Family Welfare Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George
Chennai
2.The Director of Medical Education
Office of the Director of
Medical Education
E.V.R.Road, Kilpauk
Chennai
3.The Dean
Government Medical College Hospital
Nagapattinam
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 05:29:58 pm )
W.A.(MD) No.2444 of 2025
4.The Administrative Officer
Government Medical College Hospital
Nagapattinam ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 16.06.2025, passed in W.P.(MD) No.15534 of 2025, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Malaikani
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
The present intra court appeal has been instituted challenging the
writ order dated 16.06.2025, passed in W.P.(MD) No.15534 of 2025.
2. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. Writ proceedings
were initiated seeking a direction to the respondents to grant maternity leave
to the appellant from 01.08.2025 to 31.07.2026 for the third child.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 05:29:58 pm )
3. Admittedly, the appellant has two surviving children and
submitted an application seeking maternity leave for her third child.
4. In this regard, the policy of the Government has to be
considered by the Courts. Grant of maternity leave is a concession and not
part of the service condition. It is a Scheme extended to the women
Government servants working in the Government Departments. The employer
is empowered to formulate a Scheme in the nature of concession and
therefore, the Courts cannot expand the Scheme, which would result in
unnecessary financial burden to the State.
5. In the present case, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued
G.O.Ms.No.237, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.III) Department,
dated 29.06.1993. In the said Government Order, the Government has
restricted maternity leave to women servants having two living children.
Clause 5 of the said Government Order reads as under:
“5)The matter was examined in detail and after
careful consideration the following orders are issued:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 05:29:58 pm )
(i) A Women Government servant with less than
two surviving children may be allowed
maternity leave for a period of 90 days from
the date of its commencement.
(ii) Maternity leave not exceeding 6 weeks for mis-
carriage, including natural abortion or abortion
under Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
1975 may be granted to a women Government
Servant irrespective of number of surviving
children on production of Medical Certificate.
(iii) Notwithstanding the requirement of production
of medical certificate leave of the kind due and
admissible upto a maximum of one year may, if
applied for, be granted in continuation of
Maternity leave granted.”
6. The policy shows that a woman Government servant with less
than two surviving children may be allowed maternity leave for a period of 90
days from the date of its commencement. Therefore, the Government policy
does not permit the maternity leave for third child.
7. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant has submitted an
application to extend the maternity leave benefit to her for the third child.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 05:29:58 pm )
That being the reason, the Writ Court has rejected the claim of the appellant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would rely on the Judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of K.Umadevi vs. Government of Tamil
Nadu and others, reported in 2025 INSC 781. The facts in the said case are
distinguishable and in Paragraph No.34 of the said Judgment, the Apex Court
has recorded the reasons as follows:
“34. Insofar the present case is concerned it is
true that appellant has two biological children out of her
first wedlock. But that was before entry into her
service. Post entry into service and from her subsisting
marriage, this is her first child. It has come on record
that the two children out of her first wedlock are not
residing with her but with their father, who is having
their custody.”
9. Therefore, the above cited decision of the Supreme Court
cannot be applied in the case of the appellant herein. Admittedly, in the
present case, the appellant is having two surviving children and she has
submitted an application seeking maternity leave for the third child. That
being the position, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 05:29:58 pm )
order passed by the Writ Court.
10. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [G.A.M., J.]
25.08.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Director of Medical Education,
Office of the Director of
Medical Education,
E.V.R.Road, Kilpauk,
Chennai.
3.The Dean,
Government Medical College Hospital,
Nagapattinam.
4.The Administrative Officer,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 05:29:58 pm )
Government Medical College Hospital,
Nagapattinam.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 05:29:58 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
krk
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.14034 & 14035 of 2025
25.08.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 05:29:58 pm )
