MEENA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER joined as Trained Graduate Teacher (Non -Medical) in Government Senior Secondary School, Pressi, Karsog, District Mandi on 13.4.2007. She applied for maternity leave on 1.5.2007. She joined back her duties on 1.8.2007 in Government Senior Secondary School, Pressi. She was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Kao, Karsog on 13.8.2007. The maternity leave was declined to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.5.2007. Petitioner preferred original application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal bearing O.A. No. 580/2008. The same was disposed of by the Tribunal on 20.3.2008 with Yes direction to the second respondent to decide the representation. The second respondent rejected the case of petitioner on 2.12.2009. The second respondent while rejecting the case of the petitioner, vide Annexure P -5 stated that the petitioner should have applied for extension and the petitioner was not Government servant at the time of confinement.

(2.) MR . Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that the reasons assigned in Annexures P -2 and P -5 are against the letter and spirit of rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules for brevity sake). He then argued that the expression

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.