1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7324/2008 Azmat Praveen Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 19.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. A.K. Choudhary] Mr. P.R. Kukana ] for the petitioner. Mrs. R.R. Kanwar, for the respondents. ... Issue notice to the respondents as to why this petition for writ be not finally heard and accepted as prayed at this stage. Under the instructions of the Court Mrs. R.R. Kanwar, learned Standing Counsel for the Department of Medical and Health Services accept notice. Looking to this little amplitude of the controversy the petition for writ is finally heard today itself. The petitioner entered in the service of respondents as Nurse Gr.II under an order dated 21.1.2000 passed by the Joint Director, Medical & Health Services, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur. The appointment to the petitioner was given on temporary basis vide Annexure-1 as per the approval granted by the Government of Rajasthan under the order dated 20.1.2000 passed by Finance Department, order dated 20.1.2000 passed by Personnel Department and order dated 21.1.2000 passed by the Director (Aids). The petitioner remained on maternity leave from 17.3.2008 to 29.7.2008, however, the respondents denied for wages for the period 2 the petitioner availed maternity leave. Such denial was made on the count that a temporary government servant is not entitled for maternity leave. This Court in the case of Neetu Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2005(5) RDD 1144 (Raj.) held as follows: “The Government of Rajasthan under its order No.F.12 (1)F.II/54 dated 25.2.1955 declared the temporary female Government servants entitled for maternity leave. In view of this decision of the Government of Rajasthan the petitioner being a temporary female Government servant is entitled for the maternity leave under Rule 103 of the Rules of 1951. Such benefits cannot be denied to the petitioner merely on the count of the mode of payment of wages. The petitioner is working with respondents on urgent temporary basis and her status remains unchanged irrespective of the mode of payment of salary. In view of provisions of Rule 103 of the Rules of 1951 and decision of Government of Rajasthan dated 25.2.1955 the petitioner is entitled for maternity leave. The order dated 30.10.2001 cannot be made applicable upon the petitioner as she is working in temporary capacity though getting consolidated wages.” In veiw of the judgment of this Court in the case of Neetu Choudhary (supra) the petitioner is certainly entitled for availing maternity leave. The petition for writ, therefore, is allowed. The respondents are directed to sanction maternity leave to the petitioner as applied by her and to accord her all benefits consequential thereto, as per Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rjules, 1951. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '