After birth of twins, no maternity benefits for 2nd pregnancy: HC

Sureshkumar.K@timesgroup.com

Chennai:3.3.2020

The Madras high court has ruled that a woman giving birth to twins counts as two deliveries, while denying maternity benefits to a CISF employee when she had a third child after a second pregnancy. Under the rules, a woman government employee can claim maternity benefits only for her first two deliveries.

“When twins are born they are delivered one after the other, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act,” the first bench of Chief Justice A P Sahi and Subramonium Prasad said in a judgment last week.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the Union home ministry challenging the order of a single judge extending 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing Tamil Nadu government servants.

‘Try to consider case as exception as child may be deprived of benefits’

Challenging the order, the home ministry contended that the claim of maternity leave is by a member of the CISF, for whom the maternity rules of the Tamil Nadu government would not apply. She would be covered by the maternity benefits provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said, a second delivery, which, in the present case, has resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules. The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has more than two children.

“This fact, therefore, changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought by the woman petitioner, and has been overlooked by the single judge,” the court added.

The court set aside the impugned judgment of the single judge, and allowed the writ appeal. If the appellants had power to grant any relaxation in exceptional circumstances, it may be worth consideration, the court said, as it entails financial consequences that may result in deprivation of benefits to the newborn child, who is no way concerned either with the framing of rules or the choice of parents to have a child.