Case Name: S. Divya v. Registrar General, Madras High Court
The petitioner, an Office Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Department, sought payment of salary for 365 days of maternity leave sanctioned for the birth of her third child. Although the Judicial Magistrate and Principal District Judge approved the leave, the Treasury Officer refused to honor the salary bills by relying upon Fundamental Rule 101(A), which restricted extended maternity leave to women government servants having fewer than two surviving children. The petitioner challenged the Treasury’s decision, relying upon earlier Madras High Court decisions granting full maternity leave for a third child.
The Division Bench examined Fundamental Rule 101(A), the Government Orders governing maternity leave and the Supreme Court’s decision in K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu. It observed that while the earlier rule denied 365 days’ leave for a third child, the Supreme Court clarified that maternity benefits cannot be denied altogether and that women having two or more surviving children remain entitled to twelve weeks’ maternity benefit under the Maternity Benefit Act. The Court noted that the State implemented the Supreme Court’s ruling through G.O.Ms. No.18 dated 13 March 2026 by amending Fundamental Rule 101(A). Once the statutory amendment came into force, earlier High Court decisions granting 365 days’ leave no longer governed the issue. The Court held that judicial review cannot grant relief contrary to a statutory rule amended in compliance with binding Supreme Court precedent.
The Court also emphasised that maternity benefits are not merely statutory concessions, but welfare measures intended to protect the dignity of motherhood and ensure the health and well-being of both the mother and child. However, such benefits must be administered within the framework prescribed by the applicable statutory provisions. While recognising the beneficial object of maternity legislation, the Court observed that once the Supreme Court had interpreted the scope of maternity benefits for women having more than two surviving children and the State Government had amended the Fundamental Rules accordingly, the High Court could not ignore or expand the statutory entitlement in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The Bench reiterated that Government Orders issued in compliance with binding Supreme Court decisions acquire statutory force when incorporated into the applicable service rules. Consequently, authorities as well as constitutional courts are bound to apply the amended rule uniformly to all similarly situated employees. The Court further clarified that administrative authorities such as the Treasury Officer were justified in insisting upon compliance with the amended Fundamental Rules, as payment of salary and leave benefits must strictly conform to the prevailing statutory framework.
The writ petition was disposed of by denying the claim for 365 days’ maternity leave for the third child. However, the Court directed the authorities to extend all benefits available under the amended Fundamental Rule 101(A), including twelve weeks paid maternity leave.
The judgment clarifies that after the amendment to Fundamental Rule 101(A), women government servants in Tamil Nadu are entitled to maternity leave for a third child only to the extent of twelve weeks. It also reiterates that statutory amendments implementing Supreme Court judgments prevail over earlier contrary High Court precedents.
Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa
