WP/16245/2026 of Shayee Nisha Vs The Registrar General,
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
__________
Page No.1 of 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
Shayee Nisha
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
2. The Principal District Judge
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The Additional Sub Court
Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
..Respondent(s)
calling for the entire records connected with the rejec tion of maternity
leave dated 27.03.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent which is confirmed
and asked petitioner to rejoin on 27.04.2026 by the 4 th respondent and
quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequent ly directing the
respondents to grant petitioner maternity leave from 2.02.2026 to
1.02.2027 and its benefits to petitioner by considering petitioner
representation dated 30.01.2026 within the stipulated time.
For Petitioner(s): Ms.K.Swetha
For Respondent(s): Mr.Arun Anbumani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
__________
Page No.2 of 10
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
Prayer sought herein is for a writ of certiorarified man damus, to call
for the entire records connected with the rejection o f maternity leave
dated 27.03.2026 passed by the second respondent, w hich is confirmed
and asking the petitioner to rejoin on 27.04.2026 by the fourth
respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently
direct the respondents to grant maternity leave from 02.02.2026 to
01.02.2027 and its benefits by considering the representation dated
30.01.2026.
2. The writ petitioner sought maternity leave for her third
pregnancy, which was refused or rejected through the order impugned
dated 27.03.2026 passed by the Principal District Judg e, Villupuram, by
citing G.O.(Ms.)No.18, Human Resources Management (FR-III)
Department dated 13.03.2026.
3. Heard Ms.K.Swetha, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
4. It is to be noted that the issue is as to whether the pregnant
woman/employee would be entitled to get full maternity be nefits, that is
full leave, even for third pregnancy. That issue is no mo re res integra, as
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already taken up the iss ue and decided it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
__________
Page No.3 of 10
in the case of Umadevi vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.1
5. This was followed by a Division Bench of this Court, w here one of
us (RSKJ) is a party, in the case of B.Ranjitha Vs. The Registrar
General, High Court of Madras, Chennai and Ors. 2. Despite these
orders, since yet another case has also come before a nother Division
Bench of this Court, where one of us (RSKJ) is a party, in the case of
P.Mangaiyarkkarasi Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of
Madras, Chennai and Anr.3, where the following orders are passed:
“This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dat ed
15.12.2025 passed by the second respondent by which the plea
raised by the petitioner for grant of Maternity Leave f or third
confinement or third pregnancy of the petitioner has been turned
down.
2. The reasons stated by the second respondent for passing the
said impugned order dated 15.12.2025 is that, the Sec retary to
Government of Tamil Nadu Human Resources Management
(F.R.III) Department, vide letter dated 25.08.2025 has clarified
that, there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Fundamenta l Rules
for grant of Maternity Leave to permanent / not permanent
married woman Government Servants for their third child /
confinement.
3. In this context, it is to be noted that, already the issue had
come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court
in W.P.No.33559 of 2025, where one of us (RSKJ) is a pa rty. In
the said writ petition also, similar facts were confronted and the
Division Bench passed a final order in the said writ petiti on on
04.09.2025 where after following the decision of the Hon’b le
Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi Vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1204, the Division Bench had allowed the said writ petition.
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204
2 W.P.No.33559 of 2025; Dated: 04.09.2025.
3 W.P.No.705 of 2026; Dated: 21.01.2026.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
__________
Page No.4 of 10
4. However, in the impugned order dated 15.12.2025, the
second respondent has stated that, the order passed by this
Court in W.P.No.33559 of 2025 is applicable only to the
petitioner therein.
5. This kind of interpretation of the judicial order whic h 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 , by
stating the same, the officer concerned, i.e., second respondent
is trying to give her own interpretation as if that the said
judgment is judgment in personam. That kind of interpretation
sought to be given by the second respondent cannot be
appreciated.
6. It is further to be noted that, yet another case has come
before this Bench in W.P.No.48656 of 2025 almost confront ing
the very similar facts and that writ petition was also allow ed by
order dated 17.12.2025 following the dictum of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case cited supra as well as in the
case of B.Rajintha Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of
Madras, Chennai and others in W.P.No.33559 of 2025 and
the said writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.48656 of 2025 has als o been
allowed.
7. When two Division Benches successively passed orders o n
the same issue with the similar facts where also the res pective
writ petitioners request for sanctioning of the Maternity Leave for
the third pregnancy since has been turned down has be en dealt
with and accordingly, the said writ petitions were allowed , we
expect that, the present respondents, i.e., High Cour t Registry
and also the District Judiciary should understand the legal
principle enunciated in those decisions and pass appropriate
orders.
8. Despite the orders having been passed and having ta ken
note of the orders with full knowledge of the import of t he order
passed already in W.P.No.33559 of 2025, the second re spondent
still wanted to overcome the same by giving credence only to the
letter given by the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Human Resources Management (F.R.III) Department, dated
25.08.2025 and also by stating that, the order passed by the
Court would only an order in personam and would be made
applicable only to the petitioners therein alone.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
__________
Page No.5 of 10
9. This kind of pedantic approach being adopted by the officers
concerned, especially, the present second respondent c annot be
appreciated.
10. In that view of the matter as the issue raised herein is fully
covered with the aforestated decisions, we are inclined to pass
the following orders in the writ petition:
that the impugned order is set aside. As a sequel, there
shall be a direction to the respondents to extend the
benefit of Maternity Leave to the writ petitioner as per her
entitlement especially for a period between 08.08.2025 to
07.08.2026 with all attendant and service benefits
available to the employee concerned and necessary orders
to that effect be passed by the respondents within a period
of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
11. Before parting with the case, we would like to state that,
since repeatedly orders though had been passed by th is Court
and having knowledge over the orders, the officers like the
respondents have not understood the principle underlying in
those orders and repeatedly rejecting the plea being ma de by
the employees seeking such maternity benefits for third
pregnancy would be agonizing fact and therefore, in order to
avoid such kind of recurrence of the orders like the pr esent one
(impugned order), we deem it appropriate to give a direc tion to
the Registrar General, Madras High Court to circulate th is order
to all the judicial officers, who are the head of the u nit in the
District Judiciary throughout the State, for strict compliance
regarding the similar case in future.
12. Similar direction is issued to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai to s trictly
adhere the principles laid down in the decisions referred above in
Umadevi’s case as well as B.Ranjitha’s case and
G.Umanandhini’s case cited supra and the copy of this order
shall be communicated to the Secretaries to Government and the
Heads of Department for strict compliance and follow up.
13. With these directions, this Writ Petition is allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequ ently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
In the said order dated 21.01.2026, the Division Bench has given
directions to the Registry to communicate the said order to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
__________
Page No.6 of 10
Government and the Heads of the Department for strict compliance.
6. Having receipt of the order dated 21.01.2026 and having referred
so, the Government has come forward to issue G.O.(Ms.)No. 18, Human
Resources Management (FR-III) Department, dated 13.03. 2026,
whereby, though maternity leave has been allowed for t hird pregnancy, it
has been restricted only to twelve weeks, that is thre e months. This kind
of restriction made by the Government by issuing Governm ent Orders
under its executive power vested in them under Article 162 of the
Constitution against the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme C ourt as well as
this Court cannot be approved by this Court.
7. For restricting the period to twelve weeks, absolute ly, there is no
justification on the part of the Government. If it is a pregnancy, maybe
the first pregnancy or the second or the third, suffe ring would be the
same and the pre-delivery as well as the post-delivery care must be taken
by the mothers and this equal to all such pregnancies, whether it is the
first or second or third. Therefore, no discrimination co uld be shown by
the Government in approving the maternity benefits, esp ecially maternity
leave for the third pregnancy to the employees.
8. The State Government being a Welfare State and sever al policy
decisions are being taken by the State Government for t he welfare of the
women folks and several new and novel schemes are also being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
__________
Page No.7 of 10
introduced by the State of Tamil Nadu for the upliftme nt of the women,
the present deviation made by the Government in issuing
G.O.(Ms.)No.18, Human Resources Management (FR-III) Department
dated 13.03.2026, by restricting the maternity benefits to the pregnant
woman only to twelve weeks is not in consonance with t he consistent
policy taken by the State Government, nor it is in conso nance with the
law settled in this regard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Umadevi's
case (cited supra), followed by the Division Bench judgments in the case s
of B.Ranjitha (cited supra) and P.Mangaiyarkkarasi (cited supra).
9. Therefore, the import of G.O.(Ms.)No.18 dated 13.03.20 26, in
our considered view, shall not control the District Judic iary in dealing with
these kind of applications from pregnant women for san ction of maternity
leave, even for third pregnancy.
10. Even though Sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the Cent ral Act 53
of 1961 is quoted as a reason for restricting the mat ernity period to
twelve weeks, in our considered view, the rigorous of su ch provision
became otiose in view of the law having been settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra. Therefore, we think that the
said justification given by the Government in restricting t he maternity
leave benefit only for twelve weeks' period for third pregnancy is
unjustifiable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
__________
Page No.8 of 10
11. Resultantly, we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed
by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, dated 27.03.20 26 is liable to
be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. As a sequ el, there shall be a
direction to the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, to consider the
application submitted by the petitioner and sanction the maternity leave
as equal to that of pregnant women of first and second pregnancy,
unmindful of G.O.(Ms.)No.18 dated 13.03.2026. The needful shall be
undertaken and necessary orders be passed by the se cond respondent
Principal District Judge, Villupuram, within a period of one week from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. With these observations and directions, the writ pe tition stands
allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.17442 and 1 7473 of 2026
are closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
28-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy on 29.04.2026.
(drm)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
__________
Page No.9 of 10
To:
1. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
2. The Principal District Judge
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3. The Additional Sub Court
Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
Tindivanam, Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
__________
Page No.10 of 10
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
(drm)
W.P.No.16245 of 2026
28-04-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis