CW 2433/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.2433/2007 Priyanka Kaushik Versus State & (2) Ors. Date of Order ::: 23/10/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Jitendra K.Sharma, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel for respondents. Instant petition has been filed seeking directions to respondents for grant of maternity leave for the period from 27/10/06 for 135 days as per medical certificate (Ann.2). As alleged, after the vacancies were duly advertised and on her selection, petitioner was appointed on temporary basis as Nurse Gr.II on a consolidated sum of Rs.4,500/- per month vide order dt.24/01/2000. She applied for and availed of maternity leave from 27/10/06 for 135 days as per medical certificate dt.26/10/06 (Ann.2). But respondents failed to pass appropriate orders granting her benefit of maternity leave for the period in question but Director Medical & Health Services informed Superintendent, Mahila Hospital, Jaipur vide letter dt.15/12/06 (Ann.3) that there is no provision for grant of maternity leave to employee on consolidated sum. Counsel for petitioner submits that R. 103 of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules (“R.S.R.”) in details has been considered by this Court in CW 2433/07 //2// Dr. (Smt.) Hemlata Sarawat Vs. State (2008(2) WLC 638) and observed ad infra: “22. The petitioner, even if working on contract basis, has entered into services under the order dated 15/09/2003 (Ann.1) after having been found fit and eligible by the Selection Committee as stated in the said order. Here has not been a back door entry. Merely because the respondents would choose to put her on consolidated salary and state it to be a contractual appointment, the fact that she is a woman employee cannot be lost sight of and the essential benefits fundamentally dealing with the very basics of human rights of allowing maternity benefit to the women cannot be and ought not to have been ignored and the petitioner ought to have been allowed maternity leave as applied for. It may be pointed out that there had been any other reason of denying maternity leave to the petitioner except that she was working on consolidated salary on contract basis. Such being a proposition already declared unacceptable, the action of the respondents is not only illegal but malafide too.” Taking assistance from the judgment (supra), Counsel submits that female employees working on ad hoc/temporary basis or being employed on contract basis/consolidated sum/wages are Govt. servants and no distinction can be made on the CW 2433/07 //3// basis of their status for entitlement for maternity leave under Scheme of Rules. Per contra, Govt. Counsel submits that there is circular issued by Govt. dt.06/11/07 – as per which, female Govt. employees appointed on contract basis are entitled for maternity leave only for two months and beyond two months, they are entitled for grant of leave without pay for two & half months. In instant case, petitioner has been working since 24/01/2000 after appointment on vacancies being advertised and going through process of selection initiated by respondents as Nurse Gr.II and merely because respondents have given nomenclature of appointment on consolidated sum, that would not give any justification to deprive such female Govt. servants from maternity leave. As per R.103 of RSR and as has been considered by this Court in Hemlata Saraswat Vs. State (supra), even if female employee is appointed on contract basis or has entered into service on consolidated sum, which cannot be termed as back door entry, no distinction can be made for the purposes of benefits to which one is entitled for U/r 103, RSR. Consequently, writ petition is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to consider CW 2433/07 //4// case of petitioner and release sanction of maternity leave period as applied for in terms of R.103, RSR, along with consequential benefits flowing therefrom, within a period of three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/2433CW07mnrlv2310.doc