SBCWP4149/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4149/1997 Smt. Munni Kumari Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 19.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri D.D. Khandelwal, Counsel for petitioner Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Smt. Munni Kumari challenging order dated 21.08.1996 by which recovery of amount of Rs.8,538/-, in part, was made from her. The amount was paid to her on account of maternity leave. Shri D.D. Khandelwal, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that petitioner was paid the said amount in view of provisions contained in Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Petitioner, who was working with respondent Department as Teacher Gr.III, applied for maternity leave from 10.01.1995 to 09.04.1995; that leave was duly sanctioned by the competent SBCWP4149/1997 // 2 // authority. Leave application of petitioner was accompanied by medical certificate issued by competent medical officer certifying the fact of her pregnancy period. The respondents arbitrarily and without any notice to petitioner and merely on the basis of audit report, decided to make recovery and actually affected part of the recovery. It is contended that according to Rule 103 of the Rules of 1951 a woman is entitled to get maternity leaves maximum upto three times in her entire service career. Thus, petitioner is entitled to take refund of the aforesaid amount and accordingly recovery order be quashed and set aside. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel, opposed writ petition and submitted that maternity leave could be granted to a lady employee only twice and third time she could be granted such maternity leave only if it was shown that she had no surviving issue. The local audit raised objection that petitioner was not entitled to maternity leave for third time because she did not submit any required proof thereof. No notice was therefore required to be given to petitioner. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties SBCWP4149/1997 // 3 // and perusing material on record I find that even if there was an objection raised by local audit department, the respondents could not unilaterally make recovery of said amount from petitioner. They were required to serve upon her a notice prior to affecting such recovery. They could have called upon petitioner to submit details in terms of objections raised by local audit department. Since no such notice was given by respondents and that the maternity leave was granted on satisfaction of competent authority after examining medical certificate produced by petitioner, such recovery could not be made. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.08.1996 is set-aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. Compliance of this judgment be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//