Madras High Court
B.Ranjitha vs The Registrar General on 4 September, 2025
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
2025:MHC:2146
W.P.No.33559 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.P.No.33559 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.37723 & 37724 of 2025
B.Ranjitha ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
2. The Principal District Judge,
Ulundurpettai,
Kallakurichi.
3. The Additional District Munisf Judge,
Ulundurpettai,
Kallakurichi District. ... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 06:27:10 pm )
W.P.No.33559 of 2025
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
entire records connected with the rejection of maternity leave dated
19.08.2025 passed by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal
and arbitrary and consequently, directing the respondents to grant the
petitioner maternity leave from 18.08.2025 to 17.08.2026 and its benefits
to the petitioner by considering the petitioner's representation dated
14.08.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dinesh
For Respondents : Ms.B.Poongkhulai
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This writ petition has been filed seeking for a writ of certiorarified
mandamus, to call for the entire records connected with the rejection of
maternity leave dated 19.08.2025 passed by the third respondent and
quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the
respondents to grant maternity leave from 18.08.2025 to 17.08.2026 and
its benefits to the petitioner by considering the petitioner's representation
dated 14.08.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 06:27:10 pm )
2. The petitioner is working as Junior Assistant since 01.04.2025
in the third respondent Court. Already she had given birth for one male
child aged about eight years and one female child aged about six years
prior to the appointment of her as Junior Assistant in the respondent
Judiciary.
3. Now the petitioner conceived for a third baby even before
joining as Junior Assistant since 01.04.2025. Therefore, as per the advice
of the doctor, since the delivery is expected on 11.09.2025, she has sent a
representation for the maternity leave from 18.08.2025 to 17.08.2026 to
the third respondent by representation dated 14.08.2025 which has been
turned down by the said respondent stating that, since this is the third
confinement, the maternity application was returned. Challenging the
same, the present writ petition has been directed.
4. Heard Mr.M.Dinesh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Ms.B.Poongkhulai, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 06:27:10 pm )
5. The only question is to be answered in the lis as to whether the
petitioner is entitled to get maternity leave or maternity benefits for the
present pregnancy which is happened to be the third pregnancy of her or
not.
6. The issue raised in this appeal is no more res 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 06:27:10 pm )
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 06:27:10 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 06:27:10 pm )
to get the relief to third pregnancy which would have no logic at all and
thoroughly unreasonable. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 06:27:10 pm )
14. With these directions, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent
indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[R.S.K., J.] [H.C., J.]
04.09.2025
NCC: Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
vji
Note: Issue order copy by 04.09.2025.
To
1. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
2. The Principal District Judge,
Ulundurpettai,
Kallakurichi.
3. The Additional District Munisf Judge,
Ulundurpettai,
Kallakurichi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 06:27:10 pm )
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
vji
and
W.M.P.Nos.37723 & 37724 of 2025
04.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/09/2025 06:27:10 pm )
