Mrs. Bakkiyalakshmi Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Prayer: calling for the entire records connected with the rejection of maternity leave in Na.Ka.No.C2/548/2026 dated 27.5.2026 passed by the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently directing the respondents to grant the petitioners maternity leave and its benefits to the petitioner from 15.5.2026 to 14.5.2027 by considering the petitioner representation dated 21.5.2026 within the stipulated time fixed by this Honble court

¶22

For Petitioner(s):

¶23

Ms.L.Meenakshi

¶24

For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Gokulraj, GA.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶27

“ calling for the entire records connected with the rejection

¶28

of maternity leave in Na.Ka.No.C2/548/2026 dated 27.5.2026 passed by the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently directing the respondents to grant the petitioners maternity leave and its benefits to the petitioner from 15.5.2026 to 14.5.2027 by considering the petitioner representation dated 21.5.2026 within the stipulated time fixed by this Honble court .”

¶29

The petitioner would submit that she has been serving as a Grade I

¶30

Woman Police Constable in the respondent Department since 2013. She

¶31

Page2 of 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

WP No. 23888 of 2026

¶34

would further submit that she delivered her third child on 15.05.2026 and on the advice of her doctor, had applied for maternity leave for the period from 15.05.2026 to 14.05.2027, along with all attendant service and monetary benefits. Since the petitioner's request for maternity leave was rejected by the 4th respondent by the impugned order dated 27.05.2026, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the reliefs stated supra.

¶35

Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records.

¶36

4.The issue is no longer res integra. In the case of Umadevi Vs

¶37

Government of Tamil Nadu (2025) SCC Online 1204 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that denying maternity leave for the third child was unconstitutional. Further, the judgment in Uma Devi’s case has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.705 of 2026 . The Division Bench of this Court, taking note of the above referred Uma Devi’s case and other Bench judgments, had observed as follows in Paragraph 10.

¶38

“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

¶39

Page3 of 6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

WP No. 23888 of 2026

¶42

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 one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶43

The above said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the order dated 27.05.2026 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Maternity Leave to the writ petitioner as per her entitlement especially for the period between 15.05.2026 to 14.05.2027 with all attendant

¶44

monetary and service benefits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶45

25-06-2026

¶46

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶47

SHR

¶48

__________ Page4 of 6

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis