The Madras High Court has held that no discrimination could be shown by the government in approving maternity benefits, especially leave for the third pregnancy to the employees.

A division bench comprising Justices R Suresh Kumar and N Senthil Kumar gave the ruling on April 28 while allowing a petition from Shayee Nisha.

The bench set aside the orders of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, dated March 27, 2026, which rejected the representation of the petitioner seeking maternity leave from February 2, 2026 to February 1, 2027 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram, which asked her to rejoin on April 27, 2026.

The bench directed the district judge to consider the application submitted by Nisha and sanction the maternity leave as equal to that of women of first and second pregnancy, unmindful of a Government Order (GO) dated March 13, 2026, within one week.

According to petitioner, she sought maternity leave for her third pregnancy, which was refused or rejected through the order, dated March 27, 2026 passed by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, by citing G O (MS) No.18, Human Resources Management (FR-III) Department.

Citing a judgment of the Supreme Court and judgments of the division bench of the Madras HC, the judges said that having receipt of the order of the Division bench, dated January 21, 2026 and having referred so, the government has come forward to issue the said GO, whereby, though maternity leave has been allowed for third pregnancy, it has been restricted only to 12 weeks, i.e. three months.

This kind of restriction made by the government by issuing GO under its executive power vested in them under Article 162 of the Constitution against the dictum of the Supreme Court as well as this Court cannot be approved, the bench added.

For restricting the leave period to 12 weeks, absolutely there was no justification on the part of the government. If it was a pregnancy, may be the first, second or the third, suffering would be the same and pre-delivery as well as post-delivery care must be taken by the women.

This was equal to all such pregnancies. Therefore, no discrimination could be shown by the government in approving the maternity benefits, especially maternity leave for the third pregnancy to the employees, the bench added.

Being a welfare state and several policy decisions being taken by the state government for the welfare of the women and several new and novel schemes were also being introduced by the State of Tamil Nadu for their upliftment.

The present deviation made by the Government in issuing the GO dated March 13,2026, by restricting the maternity benefits to the pregnant woman only to 12 weeks was not in consonance with the consistent policy taken by the state government.

Nor was it in consonance with the law settled in this regard by the Supreme Court in Umadevi case, followed by the Division Bench judgments in the cases of B Ranjitha and P Mangaiyarkkarasi, the bench added.

"Therefore, the import of GO dated March 13,2026, in our considered view, shall not control the District Judiciary in dealing with these kinds of applications from pregnant women for sanction of maternity leave, even for third pregnancy," the bench ruled.

The court said that even though Sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the Central Act 53 of 1961 was quoted as a reason for restricting the maternity period to 12 weeks, in its considered view, the rigours of such provision became otiose in view of the law having been settled by the Supreme Court.

"Therefore, we think that the said justification given by the government in restricting the maternity leave benefit only for 12 weeks' period for third pregnancy is unjustifiable", the bench added.

Published on April 29, 2026