The Madras High Court has set aside an administrative order passed by the High Court Registry that rejected a plea for maternity leave for a third child. The Division Bench, comprising Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed, ruled that the benefit must be extended to the petitioner in line with established legal precedents, criticizing the respondents for treating previous judicial orders on the issue as applicable only to specific individuals (in personam).
The writ petition, filed by P. Mangaiyarkkarasi, challenged the rejection of her maternity leave application for her third confinement. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the rejection order dated December 15, 2025, and directed the respondents to grant maternity benefits for the period from August 8, 2025, to August 7, 2026.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, an employee of the High Court, had applied for maternity leave for her third pregnancy. The Registrar (Management), High Court of Madras (second respondent), rejected the request vide proceedings dated December 15, 2025.
The rejection was based on a clarification issued by the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Human Resources Management (F.R.III) Department, in a letter dated August 25, 2025. The letter stated that “there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules for grant of Maternity Leave to permanent / not permanent married woman Government Servants for their third child / confinement.”
Arguments and Reasoning
The respondents justified the impugned order by relying on the aforementioned government letter. Furthermore, the second respondent contended that the earlier order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.33559 of 2025, which had granted similar relief, was applicable only to the petitioner in that specific case.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench observed that the legal issue regarding maternity leave for a third child had already been settled. The Court referred to the order passed by a Division Bench on September 4, 2025, in W.P.No.33559 of 2025, which relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204).
The Bench expressed strong dissatisfaction with the respondents’ interpretation that the previous judgment was merely in personam. Justice R. Suresh Kumar, speaking for the Bench, observed:
“This kind of interpretation of the judicial order which is an order in rem as the principle as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case cited supra since having been followed in the said judgment, it cannot be stated as if that, the said judgment would apply only to the said petitioner… That kind of interpretation sought to be given by the second respondent cannot be appreciated.”
The Court further noted that another writ petition (W.P.No.48656 of 2025) involving similar facts had also been allowed on December 17, 2025, following the dictum in Umadevi’s case and B. Rajintha Vs. The Registrar General.
Despite these successive Division Bench orders, the respondents continued to rely on the government letter to deny benefits. The Court termed this stance as a “pedantic approach” by the officers concerned. The Bench remarked:
“When two Division Benches successively passed orders on the same issue with the similar facts… we expect that, the present respondents, i.e., High Court Registry and also the District Judiciary should understand the legal principle enunciated in those decisions and pass appropriate orders.”
Decision and Directions
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated December 15, 2025. The respondents were directed to:
- Extend the benefit of Maternity Leave to the petitioner as per her entitlement, specifically for the period between 08.08.2025 to 07.08.2026.
- Grant all attendant and service benefits available to the employee.
- Pass necessary orders within one week from the date of receipt of the order.
In order to prevent the recurrence of such rejections, which the Court described as an “agonizing fact” for employees, the Bench issued the following specific directions:
- To the Registrar General: Circulate the order to all judicial officers heading units in the District Judiciary throughout the State for strict compliance in future cases.
- To the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu: Strictly adhere to the principles laid down in Umadevi’s case, B. Ranjitha’s case, and G. Umanandhini’s case. The order must be communicated to the Secretaries to the Government and Heads of Departments for strict compliance and follow-up.
Case Details:
- Case Title: P. Mangaiyarkkarasi vs The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and Another
- Case Number: W.P.No. 705 of 2026
- Coram: Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Dinesh
- Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. Karthika Ashok
