Introduction:

In a strong reaffirmation of women’s reproductive rights and workplace dignity, the Madras High Court has once again held that maternity leave cannot be denied to a government servant merely because the pregnancy is the third one, emphasizing that motherhood cannot be regulated by rigid numerical limits when constitutional values of equality, dignity, and social justice are at stake, the ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed while hearing a writ petition filed by an employee of the Madras High Court who was denied maternity leave for her third pregnancy by the High Court Registry itself, compelling her to approach the constitutional court for relief, the petitioner, who was serving as a government employee under the High Court establishment, had sought maternity leave in accordance with medical necessity and statutory welfare principles, but her request was rejected by the Registrar (Management) on the basis of a government clarification issued by the Human Resources Management Department stating that the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules do not permit grant of maternity leave for the third confinement, the case therefore raised a critical issue of whether administrative rules can override constitutional interpretation repeatedly laid down by courts, and whether earlier judicial pronouncements granting maternity benefits for third pregnancies were to be treated as binding legal principles or merely confined to individual cases, the Court expressed serious concern that despite repeated rulings by both the High Court and the Supreme Court, authorities continued to mechanically deny maternity benefits, thereby forcing women employees to litigate for what should be treated as a basic service right, and this case thus became not only about one employee’s entitlement but also about systemic failure to internalize judicial interpretation and humane labour standards within government administration.

Arguments:

On behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. M. Dinesh argued that denial of maternity leave for the third pregnancy was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as it disregarded settled judicial precedents that recognize maternity benefits as an aspect of reproductive dignity and social welfare, it was submitted that courts have repeatedly held that even where service rules restrict maternity leave to two children, constitutional courts can and have directed extension of maternity benefits for third pregnancies based on humanitarian and constitutional considerations, it was further argued that maternity leave is not a privilege but a necessity for safeguarding the health of both mother and child, and denial of such leave amounts to forcing women to choose between employment and motherhood, which is constitutionally impermissible, on the other hand, counsel for the respondents, Mrs. Karthika Ashok, defended the action of the Registry by placing reliance on the clarification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu dated August 25, 2025, which explicitly stated that the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules do not provide for maternity leave for the third confinement, it was argued that the Registry was bound by service rules and executive instructions and could not extend benefits beyond what is prescribed, it was further contended that earlier court orders granting maternity leave for third pregnancy were orders in personam applicable only to the petitioners in those specific cases and could not be treated as general policy directives binding on all departments, the respondents thus sought to justify their refusal by arguing that unless the rules are formally amended, authorities are not empowered to grant such benefits universally, and that any deviation would amount to administrative overreach, the core dispute therefore revolved around whether constitutional interpretation by courts can override restrictive service rules, and whether judicial precedents on maternity leave must be followed uniformly by government departments or can be ignored unless specifically directed in each individual case.

Court’s Judgment:

Rejecting the narrow and technical interpretation adopted by the authorities, the Madras High Court held that denial of maternity leave for third pregnancy was legally unsustainable and contrary to binding judicial principles, the Court observed that although the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules may not expressly provide for maternity leave beyond two children, constitutional courts have consistently adopted a purposive and humane interpretation to extend maternity benefits even for third pregnancies, keeping in view the welfare objective of labour laws and constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality, the Bench specifically noted that both the Supreme Court and multiple Division Benches of the High Court had already taken this view, including in Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, and therefore the argument that such orders were only applicable to individual petitioners was completely unacceptable, the Court criticized the approach of the authorities as pedantic and mechanical, observing that once a legal principle is laid down by constitutional courts, it becomes binding and must be applied uniformly, and that forcing every woman employee to file separate writ petitions for identical relief reflects administrative insensitivity and disregard for judicial discipline, the Bench further remarked that when two Division Benches had already allowed similar claims, the High Court Registry and District Judiciary were expected to understand and implement the principle without repeated litigation, the Court therefore set aside the order of the Registrar (Management) denying maternity leave and directed the High Court establishment to grant maternity benefits to the petitioner with all attendant service benefits within one week, significantly, the Court went beyond individual relief and issued institutional directions by ordering the High Court Registry to circulate the judgment to all District Judges across the State to ensure that judicial officers heading district courts strictly comply with the legal position, and further directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to communicate the judgment to all Secretaries and Heads of Departments so that maternity benefits for third pregnancies are not denied in future on technical grounds, thereby transforming an individual service dispute into a systemic corrective measure aimed at preventing repeated injustice to women employees across government services.