S.DIVYA vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL,
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:2429
WP No. 40841 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
WP No. 40841 of 2025
S.Divya
No 6, 4th Kamarajar Street, Gandhi Nagar,
Pattabiram, Chennai 600 072
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Registrar General,
Madras High Court,
Chennai 600 104
2. The Treasury Officer,
District Treasury,
Thiruvallur.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiroarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd
respondent in K.No 1817588 / L 1 / 2025 dated 01.09.2025 and 18.09.2025
and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to make
payment from June 2025 for the period of maternity leave sanctioned
( 26.03.2025 to 25.05.2026) to the petitioner.
For Petitioner(s): Ms.G.Priyadharshini
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Umesh Rao,
for R1
D.R.Gouri,
Government Counsel
__________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 06:22:18 pm )
2026:MHC:2429
WP No. 40841 of 2025
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The present writ petition has been instituted by an Office Assistant
serving in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court Magisterial Level,
Poonamallee.
2.The petitioner states that she has three children namely, (i) Sai
st
Samyuktha, aged about 6 years, currently studying 1 standard in a private
school, (ii) Ms.Poshika, aged about 3½ years, studying LKG and (iii)
Jeevithan, born on 14.06.2025. She applied for maternity leave for her
delivery and baby care for 365 days for a period from 26.05.2025 to
25.05.2026 along with the medical certificate before the Judicial Magistrate,
Fast Track Magisterial Level, Poonamallee. The learned Judicial Magistrate
sanctioned maternity leave vide proceedings dated 15.05.2025 in line with
G.O.Ms.No.84, Human Resources Management Department dated
23.08.2021. As per the said Government Order, the petitioner claims that she
is eligible for maternity leave for 365 days. The order was forwarded to the
Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, for approval. The Principal District Judge,
Tiruvallur, approved the maternity leave granted by Judicial Magistrate.
Consequently, salary bills were presented to the Treasury concerned. The
Treasury on 26.06.2025 turned down the bills citing Fundamental Rule 101(A)
on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for maternity leave of 365 days
__________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 06:22:18 pm )
2026:MHC:2429
WP No. 40841 of 2025
rd
for the 3 child. Since the Treasury rejected to pay the salary for 365 days
maternity leave, the present writ petition came to be instituted.
3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that a
rd
government employee is eligible for maternity leave of 365 days even for 3
child. Therefore, the leave was sanctioned properly by the Judicial Magistrate.
However, the treasury has raised an objection by citing Fundament Rule
101(A) which is not in consonance with the decisions of this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.Ranjitha vs. The Registrar
1
General, High Court of Madras , reported in 2025::MHC::2146 . Yet another
judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Shayee Nisha vs. Registrar
General, High Court, Madras dated 28.04.2026 in W.P.No.16245 of 2026
also granted the relief. That apart, even there is no prohibition to grant full
rd
maternity leave for 3 child in view of the Supreme Court judgment. Thus, the
present writ petition is to be considered.
st
5. Learned counsel for the 1 respondent supported the claim of the writ
petitioner mainly on the ground that the Judicial Department has sanctioned
the maternity leave for 365 days based on the judgment passed in the case of
1
2025::MHC::2146
__________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 06:22:18 pm )
2026:MHC:2429
WP No. 40841 of 2025
Ranjitha cited supra. By following the said judgment, the learned Judicial
Magistrate has sanctioned the maternity leave.
6. Let us now examine the spirit of the Fundamental Rules 101 which is
extracted hereunder.
FR.101 Rule regulating the grant of--
(a) – Maternity leave to female Government
servants,
Instructions under FR 101(a) – Maternity leave.
1. (I) A competent authority may grant maternity leave on
full pay to permanent married women Government
servants and to non-permanent married women
Government servants, who are appointed on regular
capacity, for a period not exceeding 365 days, which may
spread over from the pre-confinement rest to post
confinement recuperation at the option of the Government
servant.
The first proviso to rule 101(a) of the Fundamental
Rules stipulates as follows:-
“provided that the maternity leave referred in (I) or (ii)
above shall be granted to a married woman Government
servant with less than two surviving children.”
7. The above Fundamental Rules states that maternity leave shall be
granted to a married female government servant with less than two surviving
children. Further, there is no rule provision in Tamil Nadu Fundament Rules to
grant maternity leave to permanent/non-permanent married government
servant for the third child.
__________
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 06:22:18 pm )
2026:MHC:2429
WP No. 40841 of 2025
8. The Government has taken a policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.237,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.06.1993,
regarding the two surviving children norms for grant of maternity leave.
Necessary amendments to the provisions of the Fundamental Rules have
been made vide G.O.Ms.No.173, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department dated 27.06.1997 as follows, giving it to a statute.
In the said rules, in Rule 101, under the heading
“instructions under Rule 101(a) – Maternity Leave”,-
(1) In instruction 1, for the proviso, the following proviso
shall be substituted namely:-
th
“provided that on and from the 29 June 1993, maternity
leave shall be granted to a women Government Servant
with less than two surviving children”.
9. Therefore, there is no provision under the Fundamental Rules to
grant maternity leave for third child. The Treasury Officer, Tiruvallur, also
relied on the policy decision of the Government relying on the Fundamental
Rules that there is no provision under the Fundamental Rules to grant
maternity leave for the third child. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India considered this issue, based on the Maternity Benefit Act in the case of
Umadevi vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2025
2
INSC 781 .
2
2025 INSC 781 .
__________
Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 06:22:18 pm )
2026:MHC:2429
WP No. 40841 of 2025
10. In view of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the
issue for grant of maternity leave to the female employee for third child, the
said judgment became the law and to be followed scrupulously.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme ,Court in the case of Umadevi cited supra
elaborately considered the provisions of Maternity Benefit Act as well as Rule
101(A) of the Fundamental Rule applicable to the Government employees.
Under the Fundamental Rule, applicable to the State Government employee
in Tamilnadu, there is no provision for grant of maternity leave to the third
child. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the provisions of the
Maternity Benefit Act, granted the relief to the female employee for grant of
maternity leave for third child. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
restricted the benefit for 12 weeks for the third child. In paragraph 19 of the
judgment in Umadevi’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made a finding as
under:
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 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
__________
Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 06:22:18 pm )
2026:MHC:2429
WP No. 40841 of 2025
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.
12. Pertinently, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Umadevi’s case cited supra has been implemented by the Government of
Tamil Nadu and G.O.Ms.No.18, Home Resources Management Department,
dated 13.03.2026, has been issued. The said Government Order has been
issued referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated
23.05.2025 and the Fundamental Rule 101(A). Accordingly, an amendment
was inserted in Rule 101(A) of the Fundamental Rules which reads as follows:
AMENDMENTS
In the said Rules, in rule 101, under the heading
‘Instructions under Rule 101(a) – Maternity Leave’, in
instruction 1, for the first and second provisos, the following
provisos shall be substituted, namely:-
“Provided that the maternity leave for a period not
exceeding 365 days referred in clauses (I) and (ii) above shall
be granted to a married woman Government servant having
less than two surviving children:
Provided further that in the case of a married woman
Government servant having two surviving children born as
twins in the first delivery, maternity leave shall be granted for a
period not exceeding 365 days for one more delivery.
Provided also that in the case of a married woman
Government servant having two or more than two surviving
children, maternity leave on full pay for a period not exceeding
__________
Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 06:22:18 pm )
2026:MHC:2429
WP No. 40841 of 2025
twelve weeks, which may spread over from the pre-
confinement rest to post confinement recuperation at the
option of the Government servant”.
13. Therefore, the grant of maternity leave to married woman
government servant for more than two children are to be granted in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13.03.2026. The Government Order, amending
Fundamental Rule 101(A) was issued in pursuance to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the High Court is not expected to
grant the relief over and above the terms and conditions stipulated in
G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13.03.2026 which was issued implementing the
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Fundamental Rule was also
amended and therefore, the said Rule is to be followed in respect of the
female government employee for grant of maternity leave for third child. The
amendment issued would show that in case of married woman government
servant, having two or more than two surviving children, maternity leave on full
pay for a period not exceeding twelve weeks, which may spread over from the
pre-confinement rest to post confinement recuperation at the option of the
Government servant. Therefore, the said benefit alone is to be granted to the
female employee for the third child.
14. In respect of the judgments of the High Court of Madras relied on by
the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that those judgments cannot
be followed as a precedence in view of the authoritative pronouncement of
__________
Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 06:22:18 pm )
2026:MHC:2429
WP No. 40841 of 2025
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.Umadevi vs.
Government of Tamilnadu reported in 2025 INS 781 which was
implemented vide Government Order of Tamilnadu by G.O.Ms.No.18 Home
Resources Department dated 13.03.2026. Thus, the High court, in exercise of
powers of judicial review cannot grant the relief contrary to the policy decision
of the Government, which was issued based on the judgment of the Supreme
Court of India and by amending Rule 101(A) of the Fundamental Rules. Thus,
those judgments of the High Court have denuded to lose its status as
precedence and may not be followed for the purpose of granting the relief.
15. In view of the above legal position, the relief as such sought for in
the writ petition, cannot be granted. However, the eligible benefits as per the
Fundamental Rules as amended in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13.03.2026 shall be
granted to the petitioner by following the procedures as contemplated in the
rules. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.)
24-06-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vsi
Note:
The first respondent/ Registrar General,
High Court of Madras, is directed to
communicate a copy of this order to the
respective learned Principal District
Judges who may circulate the same to
the Judicial Officers functioning under
their control.
__________
Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 06:22:18 pm )
2026:MHC:2429
WP No. 40841 of 2025
To
1. The Registrar General,
Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104
2. The Treasury Officer
District Treasury Thiruvallur
__________
Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 06:22:18 pm )
2026:MHC:2429
WP No. 40841 of 2025
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
vsi
WP No. 40841 of 2025
24-06-2026
__________
Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 06:22:18 pm )