Third-Child Maternity Leave Capped at 12 Weeks: Madras HC Limits Benefit Under Amended FR 101(A)

A Madras High Court Division Bench holds that a government employee's third-child maternity leave is capped at 12 weeks under amended Fundamental Rule 101(A), overriding earlier High Court precedents that had granted fuller relief.

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice R. Sakthivel, on 24 June 2026 disposed of a writ petition filed by S. Divya, an Office Assistant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court Magisterial Level, Poonamallee. The petitioner had sought 365 days of paid maternity leave for her third child, but the District Treasury, Tiruvallur, had refused to pass her salary bills by invoking Fundamental Rule 101(A). The bench held that in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 781) and the consequential amendment to Fundamental Rule 101(A) made by the Tamil Nadu government through G.O.Ms.No.18, Home Resources Management Department, dated 13 March 2026, the maximum maternity leave payable for a third child is 12 weeks — not 365 days. Earlier Madras High Court judgments granting fuller relief were expressly held to have lost their precedential value.

The Dispute Before the High Court

S. Divya has three children. Her third child, Jeevithan, was born on 14 June 2025. She applied for maternity leave covering 365 days from 26 May 2025 to 25 May 2026, supported by a medical certificate, before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Magisterial Level, Poonamallee.

The Judicial Magistrate sanctioned the leave on 15 May 2025, relying on G.O.Ms.No.84, Human Resources Management Department, dated 23 August 2021. The Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, approved that sanction. Salary bills were then presented to the District Treasury, Tiruvallur.

On 26 June 2025, the Treasury rejected the bills. Its objection rested on the first proviso to Fundamental Rule 101(A), which limits maternity leave to government servants with “less than two surviving children.” Because the petitioner already had two surviving children before this birth, the Treasury treated her as ineligible for the full 365-day benefit. The petitioner filed WP No. 40841 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the Treasury's proceedings dated 1 September 2025 and 18 September 2025, and to direct payment from June 2025 for the sanctioned leave period.

The Legal Issue: FR 101(A) Versus the Supreme Court's Ruling on the Maternity Benefit Act

The core question was whether the restriction in Fundamental Rule 101(A) — confining 365-day maternity leave to employees with fewer than two surviving children — could stand in light of the Supreme Court's intervening ruling on the Maternity Benefit Act.

Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. G. Priyadharshini, argued that the Treasury's reliance on FR 101(A) was not in consonance with judicial decisions. She placed before the bench a Division Bench ruling of the same court in B. Ranjitha v. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras (2025:MHC:2146) and a further Division Bench order dated 28 April 2026 in Shayee Nisha v. Registrar General, High Court, Madras (W.P.No.16245 of 2026), both of which had granted maternity leave for a third child. She also pointed to the Supreme Court's judgment in Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu as removing any prohibition on such leave.

Counsel for the first respondent, Mr. K. Umesh Rao, supported the petitioner's claim on the narrow ground that the Judicial Department had itself sanctioned the leave by following the B. Ranjitha precedent.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice S. M. Subramaniam, authoring the order, began by setting out the text of Fundamental Rule 101(A) and its first proviso. The proviso, as it stood and as amended by G.O.Ms.No.173, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27 June 1997 — giving effect to a policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.237, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29 June 1993 — reads: maternity leave shall be granted to a women Government servant with less than two surviving children. The bench confirmed that under the unamended Fundamental Rules, there was simply no provision for maternity leave for a third child.

The bench then turned to the Supreme Court's ruling in Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 781). The Supreme Court had examined both the Maternity Benefit Act and FR 101(A). It found that the Maternity Benefit Act, after its 2017 amendment, does not deny maternity benefit to a woman with more than two children; it only reduces the period. A woman with fewer than two surviving children is entitled to a maximum of 26 weeks; a woman with two or more surviving children is entitled to a maximum of 12 weeks. The Supreme Court extracted that finding in paragraph 19 of its judgment: “There is no ceiling or cap on the number of children to claim maternity benefit.” The restriction operates only on the duration, not on eligibility itself.

Critically, the bench noted that the Tamil Nadu government had already acted on this ruling. G.O.Ms.No.18, Home Resources Management Department, dated 13 March 2026, was issued with reference to the Supreme Court's judgment dated 23 May 2025 and FR 101(A). The Government Order amended Rule 101(A) by substituting new provisos. Under the substituted provisos, a married woman government servant with fewer than two surviving children continues to receive up to 365 days. Where two surviving children were born as twins in the first delivery, up to 365 days may still be granted for one more delivery. For a married woman government servant with two or more surviving children, the entitlement is maternity leave on full pay for a period not exceeding 12 weeks, spread over pre-confinement and post-confinement at the employee's option.

The bench held that once the Supreme Court had authoritatively settled the question and the state government had amended the Fundamental Rules to implement that ruling, the High Court could not grant relief over and above what the amended rules permitted. Granting 365 days to a third-child case would mean transgressing the policy decision of the government, which was itself rooted in a Supreme Court direction.

On the earlier Madras High Court decisions relied upon by the petitioner, the bench was explicit. The judgments in B. Ranjitha and Shayee Nisha — though passed by Division Benches of the same court — could not be followed as precedents. The authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Umadevi, implemented through G.O.Ms.No.18 and the amendment to FR 101(A), had displaced them. The bench observed that those High Court judgments had, in its words, “denuded to lose its status as precedence.”

The bench also directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to communicate a copy of the order to all Principal District Judges, who in turn were required to circulate it to Judicial Officers functioning under their control. This step was taken to ensure that Judicial Officers sanctioning maternity leave do so in conformity with the amended rule rather than the earlier High Court decisions.

Outcome

The Division Bench disposed of WP No. 40841 of 2025 on 24 June 2026. The relief sought — payment of salary for 365 days of maternity leave from 26 May 2025 to 25 May 2026 — was refused. The bench directed that the petitioner, S. Divya, be granted the eligible benefit of 12 weeks of maternity leave on full pay in terms of the Fundamental Rules as amended by G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 13 March 2026, following the procedures prescribed under those rules. No costs were awarded.