CW 365/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.365/2009 Smt. Neeta Rastogi Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 08/12/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. CP Sharma, for petitioner Dr. VB Sharma, 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 03/05/08 to 14/09/2008 as per Rules. As alleged, on her selection, petitioner was appointed on urgent temporary basis as Nurse Gr.II vide order dt.22/01/2000 on consolidated sum of Rs.4500/- per month and is continuously working and while holding the post of Nurse Gr.II, proceeded on and applied for grant of maternity leave for the period from 03/05/08 to 14/09/2008 to which she is entitled for U/r 103 of RSR andshe also submitted necessary application duly supported by medical certificate but respondents have not sanctioned maternity leave and are not paying salary for the period of maternity leave. Hence she has approached this Court by way of instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that R. CW 365/09 //2// 103 of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules (“R.S.R.”) in details has been considered by this Court in Dr.Hemlata Saraswat 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. servants appointed on CW 365/09 //3// 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. Petitioner is working since 22/01/2000 as Nurse Gr.II on consolidated salary 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 servants from maternity leave. As per R.103 of RSR & as 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 03/05/2008 to 14/09/2008 in terms of R.103, RSR, alongwith consequential benefits, within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/ 365CW09Dec8Mtrnlv.doc