K GEETHA Vs. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION CHEPAUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed on daily wages in the Revenue Department from 1.4.1992 to 1995. THEreafter, from 1995 till 31.12.1997, she was employed as Section writer in the second respondent Municipality on daily rated basis as fixed by the District Collector under NRY scheme.

(2.) AFTER 31.12.1997, according to her, she applied for maternity leave, since she became pregnant. AFTER delivery of the child, she approached the second respondent for employment on 1.4.1998, but the employment was refused. Hence the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 4.12.1999 seeking employment and regularisation as per G.O.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 27.5.1999. She also made representations dated 23.2.2000and 25.6.2000 seeking for regularisation as per G.O.125, referred to above, since other NMR workers, who were working along with her, were regularised in service as per the aforesaid G.O.125. Since no reply was given, she filed O.A.No.6876 of 2001 praying for a direction to the respondents to reinstate her in service and to regularise her in service.

(3.) ACCORDING to the second respondent, the petitioner was employed as Section writer from September 1995 to December 1997 and she did not apply for maternity leave. It is also stated that the petitioner being casual labourer, she is not entitled to maternity leave. It is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of G.O.125, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 27.5.1999, as she discontinued her employment after December, 1997.