ssp 1 PIL 66 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.66 OF 2010 Nainesh Suresh Dolas .....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..... Respondents Ms.Neeta P. Karnik, for the petitioner Ms.S.M.Dandekar, AGP, for the respondent-State. Ms.Shobha Ajeet Kumar, for the respondent-Corporation. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 17th JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Leave to amend prayer clause is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. The petitioner is a social worker. By way of this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed that respondent No.1 State Government should direct all the Local Governments, Bodies and Corporations and Board under his control, to implement the directions contained in Government Resolution dated 24-08-2009 by which female employees has been given 180 days of maternity leave. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the said Govt. Resolution, the Local Authorities are not following the same. 2. In response to the notice, the respondent-Corporation has ssp 2 PIL 66 of 2010 filed an affidavit-in-reply. In para No.2 of the reply, it is stated that in view of the G.R., it is necessary to amend Rule 170 of the Municipal Services Rules regarding maternity leave of 90 days to the female employees of the Corporation. It is also mentioned that the Law Committee of the Corporation has sanctioned the amendment under Resolution No.51 dated 20-08-2010. The Standing Committee has also sanctioned the amendment by way of Resolution No.630 dated 12-10-2010. 3. Since now the respondent-Corporation has already taken steps to amend its service rules and also issued Circulars accordingly, learned counsel for the Corporation states that the Corporation shall act accordingly. Learned AGP states that necessary directions will be issued to all the Municipal Corporations and Local Bodies of the State Governments to amend their respective rules to see that female employees should get maternity leave of 180 days. It is clarified that if any individual has any grievance in connection with such benefit earlier to the amended rules, it is for the concerned individual to approach this Court in this behalf. However, nothing further is required to be done in view of the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation and the State Government. 4. In view of what is stated above, petition is disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )