1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6967/2008 Smt.Dr.Monika Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :: 10th September, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. M.R.Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mrs.R.R.Kanwar , for the respondents. .... After facing process of selection under a notification dated 6.11.2006 the petitioner was employed as Senior Resident (P.G.) in the subject of Gynecology vide an order dated 23.12.2006. She is presently posted under the control of the Principal and Controller, Ravindra Nath Tagore Medical College- cum-Associated Group of Hospitals, Udaipur. This petition for writ is preferred by her on the count that the respondent No.2 is not granting him maternity leave, she being employed on consolidated salary. Pertinent to note here that the petitioner has applied for maternity leave from 3.10.2008 for a period of 135 days as per the provisions of Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The issue whether a person working on consolidated salary/on contract or for a fixed term is 2 entitled for the maternity leave or not, was adjudicated by this Court in the case of Durgesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2008 (2) RLW 1304 (Raj.). In the case aforesaid this Court held 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 of the 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 the 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 23.7.04 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 23.7.04. The circular dated 23.7.04 and the impugned order dated 8.6.06 are liable to be quashed.” 3 In view of the judgment referred above the petitioner is entitled for maternity leave. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow maternity leave to the petitioner from 3.10.2008 as per the provisions of Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.