Madras High Court
M.Senthamail Selvi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 November, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.44924 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.44924 of 2025
M.Senthamail Selvi ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
The Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o. The Chief Educational Office,
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.
4. The Head Master,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Palacode, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned proceedings dated 07.11.2025 in Na.Ka.N.153
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
W.P.No.44924 of 2025
of 2025 passed by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary
and consequently directing the respondents to grant the maternity leave
from 10.11.2025 to 09.11.2026 for the petitioner in pursuant to the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2025) 8 SCC 263 K.Umadevi
Vs. Government of Tamilnadu and others.
For Petitioner : Mrs.C.Uma
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
07.11.2025 on the file of the fourth respondent, thereby rejecting the leave
application submitted by the petitioner seeking maternity leave from
10.11.2025 to 09.11.2026.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the
materials available on record.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a BT Teacher (Maths) on
17.12.2012. Even prior to her employment, she had married and given birth
to two children. After joining the post of BT Teacher (Maths), she became
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
pregnant for the third time, and her expected date of delivery is in January
2026. Therefore, the petitioner applied for maternity leave for her third
child. However, her request was rejected on the basis of G.O.(Ms).No.84,
Human Resources Department (FR III) Department dated 23.08.2021,
which provides that the maternity leave on full pay to permanent married
women Government servants appointed on regular capacity shall not exceed
365 days and such leave shall be granted only if the employee has less than
two surviving children.
4. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court
W.P.No.33559 of 2025, dated 04.09.2025, on the strength of the judgement
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.Umadevi Vs.
Government of Tamilnadu and others, reported in (2025) 8 SCC 263. For
ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the judgement of
this Court in W.P.No.33559 of 2025 dated 04.09.2025, which reads as
follows:-
“6. The issue raised in this appeal is no more res
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
integra in view of the pronouncement made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi Vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204,
where also under similar circumstances for granting of
maternity leave and maternity benefits for a mother who was
pregnant third time since has been allowed by the writ Court
which decision was reversed by the Division Bench of the High
Court as against which when Special Leave Petition was
preferred, having converted the same into Civil Appeal
No.2526 of 2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said
judgment cited supra has allowed the said Civil Appeal.
7. The facts also almost are similar to that of the
present case as in that case also before entering into service,
the mother gave birth to two children and when she was
pregnant third time, such an episode had happened where a
request for maternity leave and maternity benefits since has
been denied by the employer, she approached the Court and
ultimately, the Division Bench since has reversed the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the said order has declared the legal position too
exhaustively discussing the various aspects and ultimately held
that, the Division Bench judgment which was impugned before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court was erroneous one and therefore,
the maternity benefits was directed to be given to the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
who was the appellant before the Supreme Court in the said
case.
8. Herein the case in hand exactly the third
respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner for grant
of maternity benefits to the petitioner vide order impugned
dated 18.08.2025 stating that it was a third pregnancy.
9. Here also the petitioner gave birth to two children
before entering into service and after entering into service
since this is the third pregnancy, when she made an application
to grant maternity leave and maternity benefits, that was
denied for the said reasons.
10. Whether the first two pregnancies were prior to
joining of the service or not, even in our considered view, that
would not alter the situation.
11. The very basis for granting such maternity reliefs
to the women employees / staffs / officers concerned including
the maternity leave and maternity benefits is based on a sound
policy that in order to shoulder and withstand the pain and
sufferings undergoing by the mother at the time of pre-delivery
as well as post-delivery of the child.
12. When that being so, it does not restrict to first
pregnancy or second pregnancy and it cannot be stated that,
she would not be entitled to get the relief to third pregnancy
which would have no logic at all and thoroughly unreasonable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
Therefore, we do feel that, in this case also since the petitioner
though has given birth to two children already and she is under
third pregnancy now, merely because it is the third pregnancy,
such benefits of maternity leave and maternity benefits cannot
be denied to the mother.
13. In that view of the matter following the dictum of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Umadevi's case cited supra, we
are inclined to accept the plea raised by the writ petitioner
herein, thereby the order impugned passed by the third
respondent vide his written memo dated 19.08.2025 is liable to
be set aside, accordingly, it is set aside and as a result of
which, there shall be a direction to the respondents, especially,
third respondent to sanction maternity leave atleast from today,
i.e., 04.09.2025 to the petitioner for the whole period for which
she is otherwise entitled to under the Rules and such a leave
sanction shall immediately be made by the third respondent.”
5. In view of the above, the order passed by the fourth respondent
cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 07.11.2025 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to
grant maternity leave to the petitioner from 10.11.2025 to 09.11.2026,
forthwith with all consequential benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
6. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
21.11.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation/Yes/No
kv
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
The Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
O/o. The Chief Educational Office,
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri – 636 705.
4. The Head Master,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Palacode, Dharmapuri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
kv
21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 03:38:19 pm )
