Madras High Court
Giruba C.V.Chevalsan vs State Rep.By on 15 May, 2025
W.P.No.17847 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No.17847 of 2025
Giruba C.V.Chevalsan ...Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep.by
The Commissioner,
Directorate of Technical Education,
No.53, Sardar Patel Road,
Anna University, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 025. ... Respondents
PRAYER: The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondent to consider the representation dated 19.02.2025 and
consequently, directing the respondent to grant a maternity leave.
For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Karthik
for M/s.R.K.Law Firm
For Respondent ... Mr.C.Jayaprakash
Government Advocate
1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:38 pm )
W.P.No.17847 of 2025
ORDER
Though the petitioner seeks only for a limited prayer to dispose of the
representation, Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate has
produced written instruction stating that the petitioner is not entitled to
medical leave on account of maternity as she has delivered a third child.
This shows that even if I have to give a direction to dispose of a
representation, it is going to meet only with an order of rejection. Hence, I
heard the claim of the writ petitioner on merits.
2. The petitioner is working as a lecturer in the Department of Basic
Engineering at Dr.Dharmambal Government Polytechnic College for
women, Tharamani, Chennai from 2022. She delivered a child on
03.12.2024. She pleads that the child is being fed with formula milk, keeps
falling sick regularly with allergic skin condition. She sought for maternity
leave by way of a representation dated 14.02.2025. Though it had been
forwarded to the Directorate of Technical Education, it had not been
processed. Hence, she has come forward with the present writ petition.
2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:38 pm )
3. The instructions that have been given to the learned Government
Advocate states that the Government would grant medical leave for women
only for her first two children and not for the third child. Since there is no
dispute that the petitioner is the mother for three children, the learned
Government Advocate, on instructions, states that the mother is not entitled
for medical leave.
4. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that for
the first two children, the petitioner did not avail any maternity leave as she
was not even in government service during the relevant point of time. He
relied upon the judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court dated
21.01.2025 in W.P.(MD).No.23455 of 2024 (C.Kohila Vs. The Additional
Chief Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Secretariat and
four others).
5. I carefully considered the submission of both sides and I have gone
through the materials available on record.
3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:38 pm )
6. It is not in dispute that Government Servant who has availed
maternity leave for two children is not entitled for maternity leave for the
third time. The Rule as interpreted by Justice R.Vijayakumar in C.Kohila's
case points out the purpose of the Rule was to discourage the increase in
population. When a government servant avails maternity leave, she is
granted the same with pay. Therefore, the government is entitled to impose
conditions as to what are the category of government servants entitled to
avail this benefit. It shows that if a government servant has availed the
benefit twice earlier, she is not entitled for the same benefits if she becomes
pregnant for the 3rd or successive time. This does not mean that a
government servant who had brought forth 2 children earlier when she was
not a government servant is not entitled for maternity leave if she becomes
pregnant and delivers a child for the 1st time after she joins government
service.
7. The facts of the present case, the petitioner had not availed
maternity leave at all nor could she had availed the leave for the first two
4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:38 pm )
children as she was never in service. A pedantic approach of the Rule, does
not pass muster.
8. I am of the view that the child, born to the petitioner for the third
time, being the first one after she had joined the Government service, it has
to be treated as a first child born to the Government Servant. Hence, she will
be entitled to medical leave.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is ordered. There shall be a direction
to the respondent to confer the eligible medical leave for the writ petitioner
on the basis of her representation dated 14.02.2025. No costs.
15.05.2025
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
NCC: Yes/No
sms/mrp
5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:38 pm )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
sms/mrp
To:
The Commissioner,
Directorate of Technical Education,
No.53, Sardar Patel Road,
Anna University, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 025.
15.05.2025
6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:55:38 pm )
