1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6374/2007 Manisha Shaboo Versus State of Rajasthan and another Date of order ::: December 01, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Rajendra Soni, for the petitioner Mr.M.F.Beig, for the respondents BY THE COURT (1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (4) Counsel for both the parties submit that this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in SBCWP No.5253/2007 (Durgesh Sharma V. State and others) decided on 24.9.2007, therefore, it may be finally disposed of at the admission stage. (5) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to sanction maternity leave for the period from 7.4.2005 to 22.7.2005 with all consequential benefits. (6) Briefly stated facts of the case are that while serving the respondents, the petitioner gave birth to a female child on 16.6.2005 for which she was entitled to availed the maternity leave. The petitioner submitted medical sickness and fitness certificate for the period from 7.4.2005 to 22.7.2005 and requested the concerned authorities for sanction of the maternity leave as per the Rules but no heed was paid and 2 ultimately, she served a detailed letter of demand for justice on the respondents but all in vain. Hence, she has filed this writ petition. (7) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid controversy has been adjudicated by this Court in Durgesh Sharma's case (supra) and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. (8) Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid position of law. (9) I have gone through contents of the writ petition and considered submissions of the counsel for the parties. (10) The relevant para 10 of the judgment in Durgesh Sharma's case (supra) is as follows: “10. I am of the view that matter is to be considered under rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules read with circular dated 25.2.55 whereby female Government servant is entitled thrice for maternity leave and this Court has interpreted the Rule 103 RSR and circular dated 25.2.55 by holding that the same is applicable to the person working in temporary capacity, though getting consolidated wages. Otherwise also a person working in temporary capacity with consolidated wages in Government will enjoy better status than a casual employee working in any establishment. The legislation made by the parliament for casual worker and Rule 103 of RSR has been promulgated by the then Rajpramukh of Rajasthan under Article 309 of the Constitution of India rightly made no distinction on the ground of mode of payment of the female casual labour and female Govt. employees for grant of maternity leave. Therefore, the circular dated 23.7.2004 is contrary to the aforesaid Rule and otherwise also there is no justification for restricting the benefit of maternity leave to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons by a circular dated 23.7.2004. The circular dated 23.7.2004 and the impugned order dated 8.6.2006 are liable to be quashed.“ (11) I am of the view that the controversy raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this 3 Court in Durgesh Sharma's case (supra). (12) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to sanction maternity leave to the petitioner for the period from from 7.4.2005 to 22.7.2005 and to release amount of salary for the aforesaid period of maternity leave, within a period of three months. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. गोpa ल