Madras High Court criticized the High Court Registry for denying maternity leave for a third pregnancy, calling the stance a “pedantic approach.” The Bench directed the immediate grant of leave and emphasized that the precedent applies to all similarly situated employees.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: In a significant judgment on January 21, 2026, the Madras High Court set aside an administrative order rejecting maternity leave for a third confinement, emphasizing that judicial decisions on such matters are binding and not limited to specific individuals.
The Division Bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed strongly criticized the High Court Registry for interpreting earlier rulings as applicable only to the petitioner in those cases, thereby denying benefits to similarly situated employees.
Case Background
The writ petition was filed by P. Mangaiyarkkarasi, an employee of the Madras High Court, whose application for maternity leave for her third child was rejected by the Registrar (Management).
The rejection was based on a letter issued by the Tamil Nadu Government, stating that “there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules for grant of Maternity Leave to permanent / not permanent married woman Government Servants for their third child/confinement.”
Court’s Ruling
The Court highlighted that similar matters had already been decided in earlier cases, including:
- W.P.No.33559 of 2025
- W.P.No.48656 of 2025
- Umadevi vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1204)
- B. Ranjitha vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madras
The Bench criticized the Registry’s stance, stating:
“This kind of interpretation of the judicial order which is an order in rem… cannot be stated as if that judgment would apply only to the said petitioner.”
The Court emphasized that the earlier decisions were orders in rem, meaning they are applicable to all similarly situated persons, not just the petitioners.
The Court condemned the refusal of the Registry to follow binding precedent, calling it a “pedantic approach”.
“Despite the orders having been passed… the officers like the respondents have not understood the principle underlying those orders.”
The Bench expressed disappointment that, despite multiple judgments on the same issue, the High Court Registry still denied the benefits.
The Court set aside the administrative order dated 15.12.2025 and directed the respondents to grant maternity leave from 08.08.2025 to 07.08.2026, extend all service benefits and issue necessary orders within one week.
Directions Issued
To prevent future denial of benefits, the Court issued two major directions:
1. Registrar General to Circulate the Order
The order must be circulated to all District Judiciary Heads for strict compliance.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Says Maternity Leave Is Every Woman’s Right – Even After Second Marriage
2. Chief Secretary to Enforce Compliance
The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, must ensure that all departments follow the legal principles laid down in:
- Umadevi vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu
- B. Ranjitha vs. Registrar General
- G. Umanandhini case
Case Title:
P. Mangaiyarkkarasi vs The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and Another
W.P.No. 705 of 2026
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read More Reports On Maternity Leave
