Maternity Leave Can Be Granted for Third Pregnancy If Claimed for First Time: Madras HC
This judgment underscores the importance of interpreting administrative rules in a manner that upholds the rights of individuals while balancing the broader objectives of policy and regulation. The case serves as a critical reference for legal practitioners and policymakers in addressing similar issues related to maternity leave entitlements.

The Madras HC ruled a notable judgment regarding the entitlement of maternity leave for a woman employee. The court held that maternity leave, even for the third child, cannot be denied if it is claimed for the first time, underlining the interpretation of the Maternity Leave Rules in the case of C. Kohila vs. The Additional Chief Secretary of Health and Family Welfare Department Secretariat.
This case highlights the delicate balance between administrative regulations and the rights of individuals within the workforce.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by a staff nurse, working at Government Rajaji Hospital (GRH), Madurai. The petitioner sought directions for approval of maternity leave for her third pregnancy, despite the regulations typically allowing maternity leave only twice during a woman’s service period.
The petitioner, while employed on a contract basis, had previously given birth to two children from her first marriage but did not claim maternity leave for those pregnancies. Following her divorce and subsequent remarriage, she became pregnant again and applied for maternity leave. However, her request was denied on the grounds that this was her third pregnancy, and she was therefore not entitled to maternity leave according to the prevailing regulations.
Despite the rejection, the petitioner sought to avail various other types of leave, including medical leave and earned leave, totaling 365 days. These requests were also denied by the department, and she was subsequently referred to the medical board, which declared her fit to resume duty, thus rejecting her request for maternity leave once more.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was claiming maternity leave for the first time, and therefore, the grounds for rejection based on it being her third pregnancy were invalid. The counsel further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Deepika Singh vs. Central Administrative Tribunal* to argue that maternity leave for a third child born through a second marriage should be permitted.
The respondents’ counsel cited Rule 101(a) of the Fundamental Rules, which states that maternity leave can only be granted to a woman government servant with fewer than two surviving children. Given that the petitioner already had two children from her first marriage, her request for 12 months of maternity leave was not permissible under the service regulation.
The court observed that the petitioner had not availed herself of maternity leave for her first two children and was seeking maternity leave for the first time through her second wedlock. The court took a purposive approach in interpreting the Fundamental Rules, which aim to discourage having more children due to health considerations and financial constraints. It noted that limiting maternity leave to two children is also a measure aligned with population control policies and to prevent the state exchequer from being overburdened.
The court emphasized that the rule should be interpreted to allow a woman government employee to seek maternity leave only twice during her service period. Therefore, the state cannot deny maternity leave even if it is claimed for the first time during a third pregnancy, as it would be her first claim under the specific circumstances.
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to maternity leave for her third pregnancy, as it was the first time she was claiming such a benefit. Consequently, the petition was allowed, setting a significant precedent for similar cases in the future.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate S. Malaikani, while the respondent, representing the government, was Government Advocate Mr. T. Amjadkhan. The single-bench judgment was delivered by Justice R. Vijayakumar. For further insights into the evolving workplace paradigm, visit
- Shitij Taneja elevated as Managing Director of Times Square Headquartered Vertex Global Services - February 7, 2025
- Phenom Acquires EDGE, Strengthening Its AI-Powered Resource Planning Solutions for the Global Capability Center Market - February 7, 2025
- Employees Can Be Transferred On Administrative Exigency But Not In Violation Of Statue Or Operative Guidelines: Karnataka High Court - February 6, 2025