KIRTI YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition the petitioner seeks to claim the benefit of maternity leave availed by her for the period w.e.f. 25.09.2001 to 22.01.2002 and 21.10.2006 to 04.03.2007 which was denied to her vide orders dt. 07.03.2008 and 21.05.2008 on the premise that being a contractual employee she is not entitled to seek protection of Rule 103 of Rajasthan Service Rules.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed after selection on urgent temporary basis as Nurse Grade-II vide order dt. 24.01.2000 on consolidated salary and her application seeking maternity leave w.e.f. 25.09.2001 to 22.01.2002 & 21.10.2006 to 04.03.2007 was denied despite being eligible in terms of Rule 103 of Rajasthan Service Rules,1951 on the premise that being a contractual employee Rule 103 is not applicable.

(3.) Counsel for petitioner submits that despite this issue being decided by the Single Bench and affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court still the State Government is consistently rejecting applications filed by women employees for grant of maternity leave to which they are entitled in terms of Rule 103 of the Rules on arbitrary/flimsy grounds which is compelling them to approach this Court by filing of writ petitions. Counsel submits that DB Special Appeal (W) No.01703/2009 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Smt. Dr. Monika Sharma) preferred by the State was decided by the Division Bench at main seat Jodhpur vide order dt. 23.04.2010 wherein it has been observed that female employees working on temporary basis or consolidated salary no discrimination can be made regarding entitlement for grant of maternity leave in terms of Rule 103 of the Rules. However, despite the judgment of this Court the State Government has not taken any decision in this regard which is causing great hardship to the women employees seeking their right of maternity leave in terms of Rule 103 of the Rules, 1951. The Division Bench at main seat Jodhpur in the judgment dt. 23.04.2010 (supra) taking note of series of judgments, of which reference has been made in the judgment, in detail observed as under:-