Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which had denied maternity leave to a government teacher for the birth of her third child, citing State policy restricting benefits to two children.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that maternity benefits are part of reproductive rights and that maternity leave is integral to those benefits.

“We have delved into the concept of reproductive rights and have held that maternity benefits are a part of reproductive rights and maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Therefore, the impugned order has been set aside. The division bench order has been set aside,” the Supreme Court observed.

"Maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Reproductive rights are now recognized as part of several intersecting domains of international human rights law viz. the right to health, right to privacy, right to equality and non-discrimination and the right to dignity."

The Court set aside the impugned judgment which provided that maternity leave was not a fundamental right but a statutory right or a right flowing from service conditions.

The judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan observed :

"Insofar the present case is concerned it is true that appellant has two biological children out of her first wedlock. But that was before entry into her service. Post entry into service and from her subsisting marriage, this is her first child. It has come on record that the two children out of her first wedlock are not residing with her but with their father, who is having their custody.

Policy of the State to arrest population growth by resorting to various population control measures is certainly a laudable objective. So is the objective of granting maternity benefit to women employees. The object of having two child norm as part of the measures to control population growth in the country and the object of providing maternity benefit to women employees including maternity leave in circumstances such as in the present case are not mutually exclusive. The two must be harmonized in a purposive and rationale manner to achieve the social objective."

Background

The government servant had approached the Madras High Court after her request for maternity leave was rejected by the State. She had two children from her first marriage, both of whom were in the custody of their father after divorce. After remarrying in 2018, she sought maternity leave for the birth of her third child, the first born after she joined service. She had the custody of this child.

A single judge of the High Court allowed her writ petition, holding that Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, did not place a limit on the number of deliveries for which maternity benefits could be claimed.

Justice V. Parthiban observed that the Act only made a distinction between women with fewer than two surviving children and those with two or more, in terms of the duration of maternity leave, not in terms of the number of children for whom maternity leave can be taken.

He noted that while women with fewer than two surviving children are entitled to 26 weeks of leave, those with more are entitled to 12 weeks. He ruled that the term “surviving children” must be interpreted to mean that the woman Government servant seeking the benefit must have custody of the children.

The Single judge also noted that the petitioner had not availed maternity leave for her earlier children, as they were born before she entered government service. Further, even if the service rules imposed a two-child norm for maternity benefits, they would be repugnant to the Central legislation and would be void under Article 254 of the Constitution.

He emphasised that the Maternity Benefit Act had overriding effect under Section 27, and directed the State to grant her one year of maternity leave from 11 October 2021 to 10 October 2022.

The State government challenged this decision in appeal.

The division bench of the High Court set aside the single judge's order, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to maternity leave for her third child in light of the State's two-child norm. It ruled that maternity leave was a statutory right or a right flowing from service conditions and not a fundamental right.

It further held that the Maternity Benefit Act did not apply to government servants who are governed by separate service rules. The bench relied on a decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Smt. Urmila Manish and Ors. to support its conclusion. It ultimately held that the writ petitioner was not entitled to relief and quashed the single judge's order.

Case no. – CA No. 2526/2025 Diary No. 32351 / 2022

Case Title – K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 614

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment