CW 9372/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9372/06 Smt. Saramma Chacko Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 12/09/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Rajendra Vaish, for petitioner Mr. J.K. Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel *** Application filed for early hearing stands allowed. With the consent of parties, the matter is finally decided at this stage. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner, who is working as Nurse Gr.II, claiming salary for the maternity period for which she is entitled for in terms of R.103 of Rajasthan Service Rules [“RSR”]. Petitioner was appointed on urgent temporary basis as Nurse Gr.II vide order dt.22nd January, 2000. While in service, she proceeded on maternity leave from 1st February, 2006 for 135 days permissible under the Rules which was sanctioned vide order Ann.2 dt.1st February, 2006, but the same was cancelled vide order Ann.6 dt.17th July, 2006. Counsel for petitioner submits that she was appointed on urgent temporary basis and being CW 9372/06 [2] female government servant, no distinction can be made with regard to status of a government servant making her entitlement for grant of maternity leave under R.103 of Rules. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition where only objection raised is that petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of maternity leave under R.103 of Rules. In Dr.(Smt) Hemlata Saraswat Vs. State (2008 (2) WLC 638) this Court considered scheme of R.103 of RSR in details 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 CW 9372/06 [3] 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.” In the light of judgment [supra] and in the instant matter, the petitioner is working on urgent temporary basis as evident from Ann.1 dt.22nd January, 2000 and being a female government servant certainly covered for grant of maternity leave in terms of R.103 of the Rules. Denial thereto is certainly in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to release the payment of maternity leave in terms of Ann.2 dt.01/12/06. Compliance be made within three months. No Costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA9372CW06 12-9.doc