CW 10384/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.10384/2007 Smt. Gayatri Gupta Versus State & (3) Ors. Date of Order ::: 13/01/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Prahlad Sharma, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel for respondents. Instant petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents for payment of salary in respect of maternity leave for the period from 11/06/07 to 23/10/2007. 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 salary of Rs.4,500/- per month vide order dt.17/09/03 and joined on 23/09/03 as is evident from her posting order dt.06/10/03 (Ann.1). She applied for and availed of maternity leave from 11/06/07 to 23/10/2007 which was granted vide order dt. 08/06/07 (Ann.2), but respondents denied salary for the period of maternity leave in question vide letter dt.06/11/07 (Ann.6) on the premise that there is no provision for payment of maternity leave to employees appointed on contractual basis and on consolidated salary. Counsel for petitioner submits that R. 103 of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules (“R.S.R.”) CW 10384/07 //2// in details has been considered by this Court in Dr.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 basis of their status for entitlement of 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 CW 10384/07 //3// 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 23/09/03 on being appointed after going through process of selection initiated by respondents as Nurse Gr.II and merely because respondents gave nomenclature of appointment on consolidated salary/on contract basis, that would not be of 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), no distinction among female Govt. servant can be made merely on the basis of nature of appointment unless it is termed to be back door entry 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 case of petitioner and release sanction for payment of salary of maternity leave period as applied for from 11/06/07 to 23/10/2007 in terms of R.103, RSR, alongwith consequential benefits, within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/10384CW07mnrlv13Jn.doc