1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2230/ 2009 SMT.MALIKA VEDIA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Date of order : : : April 08, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. Dilip Sinsinwar, for the petitioner Ms.Priyanka Pareek,Dy. Govt. Counsel BY THE COURT (1) Issue notice to the respondents. (2) Ms.Priyanka Pareek, Dy.Govt.Counsel is directed to accept the notices. (3) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (4) Since the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in SBCWP No.5253/ 2007 (Durgesh Sharma V. State and others) decided on 24.9.2007 this writ petition is being finally disposed of with the consent of the counsel for the parties. (5) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to sanction maternity leave for the period from 22.1.2002 to 22.5.2002 (for first issue) and from 29.4.2004 to 26.8.2004 (for second issue) and to release the amount of salary for the period of maternity leave with all consequential benefits in terms of Rule 103 of RSR, 1951. (6) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Nurse Grade-II on contract vide order dated 2 27.1.2000 on urgent temporary basis. On 21.1.2002 the petitioner gave birth to a male child at Zenana Hospital, Jaipur from where she was discharged on 23.1.2002. The petitioner was issued sickness and fitness certificate for the period from 22.1.2002 to 22.5.2002. The petitioner applied for maternity leave for the aforesaid period but she was not granted the benefit of maternity leave. Second time, she gave birth to male child on 29.4.2004 at Zenana Hospital, Jaipur from where she was discharged on 30.4.2004. This time also, the petitioner applied for maternity leave. However, nothing was done by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. (7) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid controversy has been adjudicated by this Court in Durgesh Sharma's case (supra) and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. (8) Dy.Govt.Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid position of law. (9) I have gone through contents of the writ petition and considered submissions of the counsel for the parties. (10) The relevant para 10 of the judgment in Durgesh Sharma's case (supra) is 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 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 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 3 and female Govt. employees for grant of maternity leave. Therefore, the circular dated 23.7.2004 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 23.7.2004. The circular dated 23.7.2004 and the impugned order dated 8.6.2006 are liable to be quashed.“ (11) I am of the view that the controversy raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Durgesh Sharma's case (supra). (12) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to sanction maternity leave to the petitioner for the period from 22.1.2002 to 22.5.2002 (for first issue) and from 29.4.2004 to 26.8.2004 (for second issue) and to release amount of salary for the aforesaid period of maternity leave, within a period of three months. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. GoPal