Maternity Benefit Act Not Applicable To TN Govt Servants, No Leave For 3rd Child Even If First Two Children Born Before Joining Service: Madras HC

Justice N Sathish Kumar observed as under,

“...the facts of the present case that the Petitioner is having three biological children. When the state policy and fundamental rules restrict the maternity leave for 3rd child, this Court is of the view, as the matter of right the Petitioner cannot seek maternity leave on the basis of the Maternity Benefit Act. In view of the same, the impugned order has to be sustained.”

The court was hearing a plea by Nithya, a secondary grade teacher at a Panchayat Union Primary School against an order passed by the Block Educational Officer rejecting her request for maternity leave. The Block Educational Officer had rejected the request on the ground that as per Rule No 105 and No. 154 of the aforementioned Rules, maternity leave could only be granted for the birth of two children.

Relying upon the Maternity Benefit Act, Nithya submitted that the Act was a social welfare legislation and did not impose any restriction for availing maternity benefits. It was submitted that imposing restrictions on Government employees was not correct until the Act was suitably amended. It was also submitted that population control, family planning, and maternity benefits fell within the concurrent list, and in the absence of any restriction in the Central Act, the authorities could not impose such restrictions on the women folk.

Nithya also submitted that she had two children prior to joining the government service and since she had not availed any maternity benefit previously, the rejection of her request cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

This was opposed by the authorities who submitted that as per Government Orders issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department in 2016 and 2017, maternity leave could be granted for the birth of two children. It was also submitted that when the State policy restricted maternity leave to two children, the petitioner could not seek leave as a matter of right under the Act. Though the petitioner relied on an earlier decision of the Madras High Court, the authorities informed that the same had been set aside by a division bench.

The court, looking into the laws and rules, held that the petitioner was governed only by the Fundamental Rules since the Maternity Benefit Act was not applicable to Government servants.

"When Section 2 read in conjunction with the definition of establishment makes it very clear that only the “Establishment” defined under the Maternity Benefit Act will fall within the ambit of the Maternity Benefit Act. Such being the position, the petitioner being a Government servant who has not employed in any of the Establishment as defined under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961, she cannot claim any benefit as per the Maternity Benefit Act," Court said.

It added, “Therefore, when the State has taken a policy decision that the Fundamental Rules is applicable to the Government servants, the Petitioner cannot claim any benefit under the Maternity Benefit Act, which is not applicable to the Government servants, except to the employees employed in the “Establishment” as defined under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961,” the court said.

The court agreed with an earlier observation of the division bench of the court wherein it was held that the grant of maternity leave is not a fundamental right and that it is either a statutory right or the right which flows from the conditions of service.

Though the petitioner had relied on judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the court said that the same were not applicable to the present case as the facts were different.

Thus, the court sustained the order of the Block Education Officer.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 250

Case Title: Tmt M Nithya v The Head Master and Others