T.Jothi, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

T.Jothi, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order Na.Ka.No.COLRD/3176/2025-N2 dated 22.12.2025 set aside; respondents directed to grant eligible maternity leave and maternity benefits as requested by the petitioner; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (WMP(MD)No.1024 of 2026) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who has two children born before joining service and is pregnant with a third child, is entitled to maternity leave and maternity benefits notwithstanding rejection of her request on the ground that maternity leave is not available for a third child.

Court's answer

In view of the judgments in Uma Devi (Supreme Court), B.Ranjitha (Division Bench of this Court) and W.P.No.705 of 2026 (Division Bench of this Court), the impugned order of the first respondent dated 22.12.2025 rejecting maternity leave for the third child is set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner the eligible maternity leave and maternity benefits as requested by her; no costs awarded and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maternity leave - third pregnancy - Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226 - Petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the 2nd respondent office (Rural Development, Tenkasi), joined service on 23.06.2025 after bearing two children; pregnant with a third child (expected delivery 10.01.2026), she sought maternity leave from 02.01.2026 to 01.01.2027 with attended benefits; the first respondent (District Collector, Tenkasi) rejected the request vide Na.Ka.No.COLRD/3176/2025-N2 dated 22.12.2025 on the sole ground that it was for a third child. HELD (single judge, B.Pugelendhi, J.): in view of Uma Devi vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (2025 8 SCC 263) (maternity leave and benefits grantable for a third pregnancy under FR101(a)), B.Ranjitha vs. Registrar General, Madras HC DB (2025 SCC Online Mad 6176) and the Division Bench order in W.P.No.705 of 2026 dated 21.01.2026, maternity leave cannot be denied merely because it is a third pregnancy; the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to grant the eligible maternity leave and maternity benefits as requested; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

WP(MD) No.1292 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 06.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

WP(MD)No.1292 of 2026 and WMP(MD)No.1024 of 2026 T.Jothi ... Petitioner

Vs

1.The District Collector, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

2.The District Project Director (Rural Development) Collectorae, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

3.The Executive Engineer,

Office of the Executive Engineer (Rural Development), Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Office of the Executive Engineer (Rural Development), Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.COLRD/3176/2025-N2 dated 22.12.2025 of the first respondent herein and quash the same an consequently direct the

1/8

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

WP(MD) No.1292 of 2026

respondents to grant maternity leave from 02.01.2026 to 01.01.2027 along with attended benefits to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar

For Respondents: Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader.

ORDER

The petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer in the 2^nd respondent office. She joined the service on 23.06.2025. Even prior to joining of service, she gave birth to two children and now, she is pregnant for third child and the expected delivery date is 10.01.2026. Therefore, she applied for maternity leave. However, by impugned order dated 22.12.2025, the request of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave has been rejected that this is the third child and therefore, she is not entitled for maternity leave for the third child. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has

been filed.

2/8

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

WP(MD) No.1292 of 2026

2.This Court, in W.P.(MD)No.23455 of 2024, by order dated

21.01.2025, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order rejecting the grant of maternity leave for the third child and also directed the authorities to confer eligible maternity leave to the petitioner therein. In a similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Uma Devi vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others , reported in 2025 8 SCC 263 , has held that maternity leave and maternity benefits can be granted for a third pregnancy under FR101(a). Following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (cited supra) a Division Bench of this Court in B.Ranjitha vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madras and others , reported in 2025 SCC Online Mad 6176 , held as under:

“11. The very basis for granting such maternity reliefs to the women employees/staffs/officers concerned including the maternity leave and maternity benefits is based on a sound policy that in order to shoulder and withstand the pain and sufferings undergoing by the mother at the time of pre-delivery as well as post-delivery of the child.

3/8

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

WP(MD) No.1292 of 2026

12. When that being so, it does not restrict to pregnancy or second pregnancy and it cannot be stated that, she would not be entitled to get the relief to third pregnancy which would have no logic at all and thoroughly unreasonable. Therefore, we do feel that, in this case also since the petitioner though has given birth to two children already and she is under third pregnancy now, merely because it is the third pregnancy, such benefits of maternity leave and maternity benefits cannot be denied to the mother.

13. In that view of the matter following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case cited supra, we are inclined to accept the plea raised by the writ petitioner herein, thereby the order impugned passed by the third respondent vide his written memo dated 19.08.2025 is liable to be set aside, accordingly, it is set aside and as a result of which, there shall be a direction to the respondents, especially, third respondent to sanction maternity leave atleast from today, i.e., 04.09.2025 to the petitioner for the whole period for which she is otherwise entitled to under the Rules and such a leave sanction shall immediately be made by the third respondent.

14. With these directions, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there

4/8

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

WP(MD) No.1292 of 2026

shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

3.Further, in a recent Judgment, a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.705 of 2026 dated 21.01.2026, came down heavily and issued a direction to the Government to strictly adhere the principles laid down in in Uma Devi's case as well as B.Ranjitha's case . The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

“11. Before parting with the case, we would like to state that, since repeatedly orders though had been passed by this Court and having knowledge over the orders, the officers like the respondents have not understood the principle underlying in those orders and repeatedly rejecting the plea being made by the employees seeking such maternity benefits for third pregnancy would be agonizing fact and therefore, in order to avoid such kind of recurrence of the orders like the present one (impugned order), we deem it appropriate to give a direction to the Registrar General, Madras High Court to circulate this order to all the judicial officers, who are the head of the

5/8

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

WP(MD) No.1292 of 2026

unit in the District Judiciary throughout the State, for strict compliance regarding the similar case in future.

12. Similar direction is issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai, is strictly adhere the principles laid down in the decisions referred above in Umadevi's case as well as B.Ranjitha's case and G.Umanandhini's case cited supra and the copy of this order shall be communicated to the Secretaries to Government and the Heads of Department for strict compliance and follow up.”

4.In view of the above Judgments, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.COLRD/3176/2025-N2 dated 22.12.2025 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the eligible maternity leave and maternity benefits as requested by the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

06.02.2026

NCC : Yes / No Index: Yes/No gns

6/8

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

WP(MD) No.1292 of 2026

To

1.The District Collector, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

2.The District Project Director (Rural Development) Collectorae, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

3.The Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer (Rural Development), Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer (Rural Development), Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

7/8

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

WP(MD) No.1292 of 2026

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

gns

WP(MD) No.1292 of 2026

06.02.2026

8/8

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