The Madras High Court has ruled that a pregnant government employee cannot be denied full maternity leave merely because it is her third pregnancy. The Court quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's request for maternity leave and held that the State Government's decision to limit maternity leave for a third pregnancy to 12 weeks was inconsistent with the law already settled by the Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a judicial employee in Villupuram District, approached the High Court after the Principal District Judge rejected her application for maternity leave for her third pregnancy through an order dated March 27, 2026. The rejection was based on G.O.(Ms.) No.18 issued by the Human Resources Management Department on March 13, 2026, which permitted maternity leave for a third pregnancy but restricted it to only 12 weeks. The petitioner sought to quash the rejection and requested maternity leave from February 2, 2026, to February 1, 2027, along with all consequential benefits.
Court Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice N. Senthilkumar observed that the issue was no longer open to debate because the Supreme Court had already settled the legal position in Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu. The Bench also referred to its earlier decisions in B. Ranjitha and P. Mangaiyarkkarasi, where similar relief had been granted to employees seeking maternity leave for their third pregnancy.
The Court noted that despite repeated judicial pronouncements, authorities continued rejecting such requests by relying on executive instructions instead of following binding judicial precedents.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Bench observed,
"If it is a pregnancy, maybe the first pregnancy or the second or the third, suffering would be the same and the pre-delivery as well as the post-delivery care must be taken by the mothers."
It added that there could be no discrimination in extending maternity benefits solely because the pregnancy was the third one.
The judges further held that the Government Order restricting maternity leave for a third pregnancy to 12 weeks could not override the law declared by the Supreme Court. According to the Court, there was "absolutely no justification" for limiting the benefit to three months when the physical and medical needs associated with pregnancy remain the same irrespective of whether it is the first, second, or third pregnancy.
The Bench also remarked that the State, being a welfare government that regularly introduces schemes for the upliftment of women, ought to maintain consistency with those welfare objectives instead of curtailing maternity benefits through executive orders. It concluded that G.O.(Ms.) No.18 should not control decisions taken by the District Judiciary while considering maternity leave applications from employees for their third pregnancy.
Court's Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the Principal District Judge's order dated March 27, 2026. It directed the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, to reconsider the petitioner's application and grant maternity leave on the same footing as that available to employees during their first and second pregnancies, without being influenced by G.O.(Ms.) No.18 dated March 13, 2026.
The Court directed that the necessary orders be passed within one week from the date of receipt of the judgment. The writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shayee Nisha v. The Registrar General and Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 16245 of 2026
Judge: Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice N. Senthilkumar
Decision Date: April 28, 2026
