Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

“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