Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

“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