(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for quashing of the letter dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P-10) vide which the request of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave was rejected on the ground that she is not entitled in the light of the instructions dated 22.12.2010 issued by the Director General, Higher Education, Haryana.
(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as a Computer Attendant on contract basis on 27.12.2010 in Government College, Jind. She joined duty on the same day till the contract expired on 15.05.2011. Because of the vacations, there was a break in service and she was engaged on the post of Computer Attendant from 01.08.2011 to 30.04.2012 vide letter dated 28.07.2011. PETITIONER joined her duties with respondent No. 3 on 01.08.2011 and continued as such till 04.09.2011 when she had to proceed on maternity leave and she gave birth to a male child on 09.09.2011. PETITIONER approached respondent No. 3 for grant of maternity leave vide letter dated 13.09.2011 (Annexure P-8) but the same was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P-10) on the ground that she is not entitled to the same in the light of the instructions dated 22.12.2010 issued by the Director General, Higher Education, Haryana. It is this action of the respondents, which is impugned by the petitioner through the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the instructions dated 27.12.2010, according to which, Guest Teachers and Contract employees are entitled to three months' maternity leave. However, a condition has been imposed in the said letter that three months continuous service should be there prior to the claim of maternity leave. He contends that this condition should not be made applicable to the case of the petitioner as she was initially appointed on 27.12.2010 and continued as such till 15.05.2011 and thereafter because of the examination being over and no teaching work going on and as the academic session thereafter commenced on CWP No. 22891 of 2011 3 01.08.2011 when she again joined and served the respondents till 04.09.2011. He, accordingly, contends that this objection of the respondents cannot thus, sustain. The objection, which has been raised with regard to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P-10) cannot sustain in the light of the above instructions. Accordingly, he prays that the present writ petition be allowed by granting the benefit of maternity leave to the petitioner.
(3.) IT appears from the instructions dated 27.12.2010 that female employees on contract basis working in Haryana Government are eligible for maternity leave for a period of three months. Female Guest Teachers have also been held entitled to a period of three months maternity leave. However, a rider has been imposed that they must have completed three months continuous service. IT does not specify that it should be for the contract, which is in progress or on the date, when the maternity leave was availed of. CWP No. 22891 of 2011 4 In the present case, it is not in dispute that initially the petitioner was appointed on 27.12.2010 and served the respondents till 15.05.2011. Thereafter, as there was no academic working because of the examinations held in the College, there was a notional break in service of the petitioner. On commencement of the new session, she had been engaged again on the post of Computer Attendant from 01.08.2011 to 30.04.2012 vide letter dated 28.07.2011. This appointment of the petitioner although is on contract basis but the condition imposed in the instructions dated 27.12.2010 cannot be stricto senso made applicable to the case of the petitioner as virtually there is no break in service except that she being dealing with the teaching was disengaged for a short period because of seizure of teaching during the period when the examinations were over, which was followed by vacations. If seen in this context, the objection, which has been raised by the respondents, cannot sustain.