[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
G.Thilagavathi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 20 January, 2026
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
WP No. 1259 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
WP No. 1259 of 2026
G.Thilagavathi
W/o Jawahar,
No 28/13, Maanam Partha Jamendhar street,
Kosapettai,
Vellore-632 001
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep by the Principal Secretary,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Fort St George,
Chennai 600 009
2. The Joint Commissioner (State Tax)
(Intelligence)
Vellore Intelligence Division,
Office of the Joint Commissioner (State Tax)
(Intelligence)
No 4 Bharathiyar Salai, Fort round road,
Vellore- 632 001
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
connected with the order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and
quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the 2nd
respondent to grant maternity leave to the petitioner from 04.02.2026 to
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 05:22:05 pm )
WP No. 1259 of 2026
3.02.2027 along with all attendant service and monetary benefits, by
considering the petitioners representation dated 10.12.2025
For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Arunkumar
For Respondent(s): Ms.P.Selvi,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
29.12.2025 passed Na.Ka.A1/5008/2025 in by the second respondent on the
ground that the petitioner was due for delivery for third pregnancy and for a
consequential direction to the respondents to sanction maternity leave to the
petitioner for the period from 04.02.2026 to 03.02.2027.
2. The petitioner is employed as Junior Assistant under the control of the
second respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is already
having two children and she became pregnant again and she applied for
maternity leave to the second respondent vide application dated 10.12.2025.
The said request was denied by the second respondent on the ground that the
Government servant is not entitled for maternity leave for the birth of third
child.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 05:22:05 pm )
3. The issue as to whether a Government Servant would be entitled for
maternity leave for the birth of third child is no more res integra, in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33559 of 2025
dated 04.09.2025 in the case of B.Ranjitha Vs. the Registrar General, High
court of Madras, Chennai and others, following the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and
others reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1204 and the relevant paragraphs are
extracted hereunder:-
"33.2. Thereafter, the matter travelled to this Court. This
Court referred to Rule 43 of the 1972 Rules which deals
with maternity leave. As per Rule 43(1), only a female
Government servant with less than two surviving children
may be granted maternity leave. This Court opined that
provisions of Rule 43(1) must be imbued with a purposive
construction. Since it is a beneficial legislation, it has to
be construed with a purpose oriented approach and must
receive a liberal construction to promote its objects. The
courts must bridge the gap between law and society
through the use of purposive interpretation. Though this
Court acknowledged that the Maternity Benefit Act has no
application to PGIMER as an establishment, yet for the
purpose of adopting an approach which furthers
legislative policy, referred to the provisions of the
Maternity Benefit Act to derive some guidance therefrom.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 05:22:05 pm )
After an exhaustive analysis of Section 5 of the Maternity
Benefit Act, this Court observed that the said Act was
enacted to secure women’s right to maternity leave and to
afford women with as much flexibility as possible to live
an autonomous life, both as a mother and as a worker.
Thereafter, this Court referred to the various international
treaties and conventions.
33.3. In the facts of that case, this Court observed that
spouse of the appellant had a prior marriage which had
ended as a result of the death of his wife after which the
appellant married him. However, what is relevant and
important is the following declaration of this Court:
24. …….The fact that the appellant’s spouse
had two biological children from his first
marriage would not impinge upon the
entitlement of the appellant to avail maternity
leave for her sole biological child……
33.4. Thus, this Court was categorical in declaring that
the factum of appellant’s spouse having two biological
children from his first marriage would not impinge
upon the entitlement of the appellant to avail maternity
leave for her sole biological child. Grant of child care
leave to the appellant for the two children of her spouse
from his previous marriage cannot be used to disentitle
her to maternity leave under Rule 43 of the 1972 Rules.
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
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 05:22:05 pm )
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.
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.
35. Policy of the State to arrest population growth by
resorting to various population control measures is
certainly a laudable objective. So is the objective of
granting maternity benefit to women employees. 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. "
(Emphasis supplied)
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 05:22:05 pm )
4. Following the said judgment, this Court in the case of T.R.Lakshmi vs.
the Secretary to Government, Human Resources Management Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9 and others in W.P.No.43598 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025,
has passed an interim order granting the petitioner maternity leave for the birth
of third child. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
''There shall be a direction to the respondents to permit the
petitioner to avail the Maternity Leave as applicable to other
pregnant women in case of their first or second pregnancy with all
other service beneifts arising out of maternity leave for which the
petitioner would be entitled to.
(ii) The validity of proviso to Rule 101 (a) of the Tamil Nadu
Fundamental Rules would be decided later on in the final hearing of
the writ petition.''
5. By virtue of the decision of this Court in Ranjitha & Lakshmi Case
(Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to the maternity benefit for the third
child, which cannot be curtailed by the respondents. Therefore, applying the
ratio laid down in Ranjitha & Lakshmi Case (Supra), irrespective of the fact that
it is the third child of the petitioner, however, the said view of this Court, which
is on the basis of the decision in Ranjitha & Lakshmi Case (Supra) would be
subject to the result of Lakshmi case (Supra).
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 05:22:05 pm )
6. In view of the above categorical finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India that a Government employee would be entitled for maternity leave for
the birth of third child, this Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order
dated 29.12.2025 in Na.Ka.A1/5008/2025 passed by the second respondent is
quashed. The respondents are directed to grant maternity leave to the petitioner
as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.
20-01-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
UMA
To
1. The State of Tamilnadu
Rep by the principal Secretary,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Fort St George,
Chennai 600 009
2. The Joint Commissioner (State Tax)
(intelligence)
Vellore Intelligence Division,
Office fo the Joint Commissioner (State Tax)
(Intelligence)
No 4 Bharathiyar Salai, Fort round road,
Vellore 632 001
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 05:22:05 pm )
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
UMA
20-01-2026
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 05:22:05 pm )
