Madras High Court
Dr. P. Suganya vs The Commissioner on 5 June, 2025
2025:MHC:1414
WP No. 17939 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 17939 of 2025
Dr. P. Suganya
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Veterinary Services,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035
2.The Assistant Director,
Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Veterinary Services,
Nakkasalem,
Perambalur -621 212.
3.The Zonal Director,
Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Veterinary Services,
Nakkasalem, Perambalur -621 212.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Directing the respondents grant the Petitioner herein with maternity leave
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
WP No. 17939 of 2025
benefits for her third pregnancy as the said benefit being availed by the
Petitioner for the first time in her service and consequently direct the
respondents to adjust the period of leave already taken by the petitioner as
against the maternity leave.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Santhanaraman
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.U.Dinesh Raj Kumar
A.G.P., For R1 To R3
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to grant the
petitioner maternity leave benefits for her third pregnancy, as she avails this
benefit for the first time after joining her service, and a consequential direction
to the respondents to adjust the period of leave already taken by the petitioner
against the maternity leave.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
has been working as a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in Tamil Nadu Animal
Husbandry Service since February 02, 2021. After joining service, she gave
birth to her third child on 24.06.2024 and applied for the maternity leave, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
was not considered by the respondent on the sole ground that she has two
children and this being her third delivery. However, the learned counsel for the
petitioner vehemently submitted that although this is a third delivery, it becomes
her first delivery after joining service, and would contend that she is entitled for
maternity leave, as her two elder children were born in 2014 and 2016, prior to
joining the service. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon
the order of this Court in the case of C.Kohila vs. The Additional Chief
Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department in W.P.(MD) No.23455 of
2024 dated 21.01.2025.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 would strongly object the contentions of the
petitioner and contends that according to the Government Service Rules, the
employees are entitled leave for only two deliveries, whereas, in the instant
case, the petitioner is seeking maternity leave for her third delivery, which is in
contravention to the Rule 101 of the Fundamental Rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
4. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by both
sides.
5. Now the main issue to be determined is, whether the petitioner is
entitled to maternity leave for her first delivery after joining the service, despite
having two children prior to joining service.
6. In this case, the petitioner had two children prior to joining service, qua
in 2014 and 2016, and this is her third delivery. However, the petitioner's
counsel argues that although this is her third delivery overall, it is her first
delivery after joining the service, and therefore she is entitled to maternity leave
benefits and having relied on C.Kohila's case (cited supra).
7. In this regard, it is appropriate to record the paragraph 13 of the
C.Kohila's case (cited supra).
“13.In the light of the above said proposition, the intention of the
legislature has to be understood and applied. In the present case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
petitioner has not availed any maternity leave for her first two children
born through the first wedlock. 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 woman 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 Rule has to be interpreted in such a manner
that a woman 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. In
such circumstances, the order of the fifth respondent dated 30.08.2024
rejecting the request of the petitioner for maternity leave for her third
child is not legally sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.”
Though this case factually differs slightly, the ratio regarding the interpretation
of the rule squarely applies to this case.
8. According to the above-cited case, a Government employee can avail
maternity benefits twice during their service. Since the rule regarding maternity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
leave is a beneficial legislation, needs liberal interpretation to achieve its object.
At this juncture, this Court must also keep in mind the declining reproductive
rate. According to the above rule, as interpreted in the cited case, is squarely
applicable to the case in hand.
9. Recently, in line with the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of K.Umadevi vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others1,
has authoritatively held that it is not just motherhood, but also childhood that
requires special attention. The Court further held that the well-being of both the
child and the mother must be considered while granting maternity leave. The
key legal principles laid down therein are as follows:
“19. A careful perusal of the above provision would reveal that
grant of maternity benefit is per se not denied to a woman employee
having more than two children. Following amendment in the year 2017,
a restriction has been introduced in Section 5 by inserting a proviso
under sub-section (3) as to the entitlement of the period of maternity
leave. A woman employee having less than two surviving children is
entitled to a maximum period of benefit i.e. 26 weeks and for a woman
1. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
employee having two or more than two surviving children, the benefit is
restricted to 12 weeks. Thus, there is no ceiling or cap on the number of
children to claim maternity benefit. Only thing is that in case of a
woman employee having two or more than two surviving children
seeking maternity leave, period of the benefit is reduced : from a
maximum period of 26 weeks to a maximum of 12 weeks.
.............
33.4........ In the context of employment, child birth has to be
construed as a natural incident of life and, hence, provisions for
maternity leave must be construed in that perspective. Observing that
when courts are confronted with such situations, they would do well to
attempt to give effect to the purpose of the law in question rather than to
prevent its application.
............
35. ...... The object of having two child norm as part of the
measures to control population growth in the country and the object of
providing maternity benefit to women employees including maternity
leave in circumstances such as in the present case are not mutually
exclusive. The two must be harmonized in a purposive and rationale
manner to achieve the social objective.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
10. Accordingly, this Court is of the indubitable opinion that the
petitioner's request for maternity leave for her first delivery after joining the
service, though it is her third delivery altogether, is in accordance with the Rule.
11. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to maternity leave as prayed for.
Hence, the respondents are directed to adjust the period of leave already taken
for her third delivery, as against her maternity leave within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
05-06-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Jeni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
To
1. The Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Veterinary Services,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035
2.The Assistant Director,
Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Veterinary Services,
Nakkasalem,
Perambalur -621 212.
3.The Zonal Director,
Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Veterinary Services,
Nakkasalem, Perambalur -621 212.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
Jeni
05-06-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/06/2025 08:35:45 pm )
