Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

“Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Does Not Extend to Government Servants For Third Child ,” Rules Madras High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Madras High Court ruled that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 does not apply to government servants. The judgment, delivered by THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR, has significant implications for maternity leave policies for government employees in Tamil Nadu.

The case revolved around a petitioner who sought maternity leave for her third child and contended that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 should be applicable. The court, however, held that “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.”

The court further observed that government servants are governed by the Tamil Nadu Government’s Fundamental Rules, not the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. “When the State has taken a policy decision that the Fundamental Rules are applicable to the Government servants, the Petitioner cannot claim any benefit under the Benefit Act,” the court noted.

The judgment cited various previous cases, including a Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court and a decision by the Uttarakhand High Court, to support its conclusion.

This ruling clarifies the legal landscape concerning maternity leave for government servants in Tamil Nadu and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: 14.08.2023

Yasotha vs The Government of Tamilnadu

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/p-yasotha-Vs-Govt._Tamilnadu_MadHc.pdf"]

Latest Legal News