Telangana HC: Twins in First Delivery Count as One Confinement for Maternity Leave

A Junior Lecturer denied maternity leave for her second pregnancy because her first delivery produced twins wins relief from the Telangana High Court, which held the two-child norm cannot be applied mechanically in such cases.

The Telangana High Court has held that a woman government servant who delivers twins in her first pregnancy is entitled to maternity leave for her second pregnancy, and that the two-child norm under Rule 101(a) of the Telangana Fundamental Rules cannot be applied so as to treat a twin birth as two separate confinements. Justice K. Sarath, sitting singly, allowed Writ Petition No. 7640 of 2026 on 15 July 2026, declaring that Smt. Jadi Swarupa Rani, a Junior Lecturer (English) employed with the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (TGSWREIS), is entitled to 180 days of maternity leave on full pay for her second delivery from 14 April 2026 to 11 October 2026. The court drew on decisions of the Supreme Court and the Delhi and Madras High Courts to hold that a literal reading of the surviving-children condition would defeat the very object of maternity leave and violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Dispute Before the Court

Smt. Jadi Swarupa Rani was appointed as a Junior Lecturer (English) in TGSWREIS on 27 September 2019. Her first pregnancy, on 9 November 2023, resulted in the birth of twins. The employer treated that event as a single delivery and sanctioned 180 days of maternity leave, which was recorded in her service book.

When she became pregnant a second time, she applied for maternity leave. The respondents rejected the application on the ground that she already had two surviving children — the twins — and therefore fell outside the eligibility condition under Rule 101(a) of the Telangana Fundamental Rules and G.O.Ms. No. 50, Social Welfare (RS.1) Department, dated 17 May 2014, which restrict maternity leave to female government servants with fewer than two surviving children.

The Principal of the institution replied by Outward No. 17 dated 28 February 2026 that she lacked authority to sanction leave exceeding 30 days, and that long-term maternity leave was the competence of the TGSWREIS Secretary. By the time the writ petition was heard, the petitioner had already delivered her third child. She had applied for leave from 14 April 2026 to 11 October 2026.

The State of Telangana was represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, and TGSWREIS (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) by its learned Standing Counsel Sri Bhanothu Hussain. The petitioner was represented by Sri Gattu Vinay Kumar.

The Legal Question

Justice Sarath framed the issue precisely: whether a woman government servant is entitled to maternity leave for her second delivery if her first delivery produced twins.

Rule 101(a) of the Telangana Fundamental Rules empowers the Government to regulate the grant of maternity leave. G.O.Ms. No. 254, Finance and Planning (FW. FRI) Department, dated 10 November 1995 introduced the condition that maternity leave on full pay shall be granted only to married female government servants with fewer than two surviving children. G.O.Ms. No. 152, Finance (FR.I) Department, dated 4 May 2010 enhanced the leave period to 180 days while retaining that condition. G.O.Ms. No. 50, Social Welfare (RS.1) Department, dated 17 May 2014 adopted those terms for TGSWREIS employees.

The respondents argued that the petitioner, having two surviving children from her first delivery, plainly fell outside the rule. They also warned that sanctioning leave contrary to the rules would attract audit objections and irregular draw of pay and allowances.

The court noted that the dispute was not about whether the condition exists, but about how it should be interpreted when the first pregnancy results in twins: should “less than two surviving children” be read literally to disqualify a woman whose single biological event happened to produce two children?

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Sarath compared Rule 101(a) of the Telangana Fundamental Rules with Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, finding the two rules use identical language. That brought the Central rules, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of them, directly into play.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and others, reported at (2023) 13 SCC 681. That judgment held that maternity leave provisions must be construed purposively, because the grant of maternity leave is intended to facilitate the continuance of women in the workplace, and childbirth must be construed as a natural incident of life in the context of employment. The Supreme Court in that case also observed that the right to reproduction and child-rearing is an important facet of the right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity under Article 21, and that Article 42 of the Constitution enjoins the State to make provisions for maternity relief.

The court also drew on the Delhi High Court's decision in Commissioner of Police and another v. Ravina Yadav and another, reported at 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4987, which noted that the physiological and psychological changes a pregnant woman undergoes remain the same regardless of whether it is her first, second, or subsequent pregnancy, and that classifying government servants purely on the number of surviving children they have may lack intelligible differentia.

On the specific question of twins, the court found the Madras High Court's decision in J. Sharmila v. Secretary to Government, Education Department, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 5221, directly on point. That court had reasoned that the intention of the rule is to grant maternity leave for the second delivery, not to operate a strict numerical count of children. It observed that a literal application would produce a “ridiculous result”: if a woman delivers a single child in her first delivery and twins in her second, she would be disqualified mid-delivery.

Justice Sarath further noted that following the Madras High Court's judgment, the Government of Tamil Nadu amended its Fundamental Rules through G.O.Ms. No. 149, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR.II) Department, dated 31 October 2018, expressly providing that in the case of a woman government servant with two surviving children born as twins in the first delivery, maternity leave shall be granted for one more delivery. The Government of Andhra Pradesh went further: by G.O.Ms. No. 21, Finance (HR-IV, FR, LR) Department, dated 5 May 2025, it removed the two-surviving-children condition entirely from G.O.Ms. No. 152 dated 4 May 2010.

The court held that the respondents had mechanically applied the two-child norm by counting the twins as two separate confinements, which was impermissible. The biological occurrence of a single or twin birth is not within the control of the employee. Denying her maternity leave for the second pregnancy on this basis violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Sarath also held that, even though the petitioner had not directly challenged G.O.Ms. No. 152 dated 4 May 2010 or G.O.Ms. No. 50 dated 17 May 2014, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can declare that the petitioner is entitled to maternity leave for her second delivery in light of settled law.

The court additionally relied on the Supreme Court's decision in K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2025) 8 SCC 263, which extensively examined both the Fundamental Rules and the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. That judgment held that the objective of maternity leave — enabling a woman worker to make up her dissipated energy, nurse her child and maintain her efficiency — and the State's population-control objectives are not mutually exclusive and must be harmonised purposively. It also held that a woman with two surviving children from a first marriage remains entitled to maternity leave for a first child in a second marriage. Justice Sarath applied that reasoning to the present case, treating the petitioner's first twin delivery as a single delivery for the purpose of the maternity leave rule.

Outcome

Justice Sarath allowed the writ petition and declared that Smt. Jadi Swarupa Rani is entitled to maternity leave for her second delivery for the period from 14 April 2026 to 11 October 2026. The respondents were directed to pay her full pay and allowances for that entire period.

The court made no order as to costs. Any miscellaneous applications pending in the writ petition were ordered to stand closed.