Facts
The petitioner, a woman government servant, challenged the proviso to Rule 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, which restricted maternity leave to a woman government servant having fewer than two surviving children.
Source reference: p.2She sought a declaration that the restriction was manifestly arbitrary and requested maternity leave for the birth of her third child, from July 2025 to June 2026, with regularisation of leave taken from 14.07.2025 on full pay and attendant benefits.
Source reference: p.2During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government amended the impugned rule through G.O.Ms.No.53, Human Resources Management (FR-III) Department, dated 25.08.2026.
Source reference: p.3, para.2Further, the Headmaster issued proceedings dated 24.03.2026 extending the maternity-leave benefit to the petitioner.
Source reference: p.3, para.2Issues
Whether the proviso to Rule 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, limiting maternity leave to a woman government servant with fewer than two surviving children, was manifestly arbitrary and liable to be declared illegal.
Source reference: p.2Whether the petitioner was entitled to maternity leave for the birth of her third child from July 2025 to June 2026, with regularisation of the leave taken from 14.07.2025 on full pay and attendant benefits.
Source reference: p.2Law Applied
The Court applied Rule 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules concerning maternity leave and considered the validity of its proviso restricting the benefit based on the number of surviving children.
Source reference: p.2The Court also took into account the subsequent amendment of the rule by G.O.Ms.No.53, Human Resources Management (FR-III) Department, dated 25.08.2026, and the consequential administrative order extending maternity leave to the petitioner dated 24.03.2026.
Source reference: p.3, para.2No judicial precedent or independent constitutional doctrine was expressly relied upon in the order.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The petitioner’s challenge concerned a restriction that had subsequently been removed or modified by the Government in her favour.
Source reference: p.3, para.2Since the amended rule addressed the legal grievance and the Headmaster had already extended the maternity-leave benefit to the petitioner, the Court held that no further adjudication of the validity of the original proviso or the consequential relief was necessary.
Source reference: p.3, para.2The subsequent governmental action therefore rendered the writ petition infructuous for purposes of further determination.
Source reference: p.3, para.3Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition on the ground that the Government had amended the impugned rule in favour of employees and that the petitioner had been granted the maternity-leave benefit by the competent authority.
No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.
Source reference: p.3, para.4Original Court PDF
T.R.LAKSHMIvsSTATE OF TAMILNADU
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
