Madurai : State govt on Wednesday informed the Madras high court that it has constituted a committee to decide on framing a comprehensive paid menstrual leave policy for women employees in govt services and advisory guidelines for those working in private establishments.




Following this, a division bench of Justice C V Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel directed the committee to file a report while hearing a public interest litigation filed by M Narmatha of Madurai district.




The petitioner stated that the absence of a menstrual leave policy results in indirect discrimination against women employees, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution, as women alone bear the burden of a recurring biological condition and are compelled either to suffer wage loss or to work through debilitating pain, unlike their male counterparts.




The existing leave framework, namely casual leave and sick leave, is wholly inadequate to address a recurring, monthly biological condition such as dysmenorrhoea, forcing women employees to exhaust leave entitlements or suffer loss of wages, thereby affecting their service conditions unfairly.




The petitioner stated that the continued policy vacuum adversely affects lakhs of women working in govt sectors, anganwadis, schools, rural health centres and sanitation services, many of whom lack rest facilities or flexible work options, thereby aggravating health risks and workplace inequality. The same is the situation for women who are in the private sector but do not have flexible work options in their line of work.




Hence, the petitioner moved court.




The petitioner stated that the continued policy vacuum adversely affects lakhs of women working in govt sectors, anganwadis, schools, rural health centres and sanitation services, many of whom lack rest facilities or flexible work options, thereby aggravating health risks and workplace inequality. The same is the situation for women who are in the private sector but do not have flexible work options in their line of work.




Hence, the petitioner moved court.