Ruchika Arora vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 15451 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11738/2019

Ruchika Arora D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Arora, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 424, Scheme No. 8, Gandhi Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)

3. The District Education Officer, Barmer, Rajasthan.

4. The Chief Block Education Officer, Samdari, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

5. Peeo Govt. Senior Secondary School, Nvodo Vera, Samdari Station, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore. For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Chauhan for Mr. K.K. Bissa.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

05/10/2021

Application for early listing of the writ petition is allowed.

The matter is taken up for orders.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 18.07.2019 (Annex.2), whereby, her

application for grant of maternity leave has been rejected with

reference to provisions of Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules,

1951.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue

raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment

(2 of 3) [CW-11738/2019]

in the case of Smt. Neeraj v. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.4384/2020 decided on 07.12.2020 and affirmed by

Division Bench in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Neeraj (DBSAW No.

376/2021) decided on 04.08.2021.

The Division Bench in the case of Smt. Neeraj held as

under:-

"We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that since it is a beneficial legislation and if a female government servant is giving birth to a child within the stipulated period of confinement i.e. 15 days before to three months after the birth of the child, she will be entitled to maternity leave. The argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that the respondent was not a Government Servant at the time of delivery of a child has no merit and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected in the light of the discussions made hereinabove. It is reiterated that the purpose and intention of the rule- making authority is to facilitate the female government employees by extending the benefit of maternity leave at the time of delivery of the child. In view of the discussions made above, the judgment dated 07.12.2020 passed by learned Single Judge is upheld and the appeal is dismissed being bereft of merit."

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

contradict the fact that the rejection made only on account of

interpretation of Rule 103 is contrary to the Division Bench

decision.

In that view of the fact that the order dated 18.07.2019

(Annex.2) passed by the respondents is quashed and set-aside.

The respondents are directed to decide the application of the

petitioner and grant her consequential benefits in terms of the

judgments of this Court in the case of Smt. Neeraj (S.B.& D.B.

Both).

(3 of 3) [CW-11738/2019]

Needful may be done within a period of three weeks from the

date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner alongwith both

the judgments before the competent authority.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

133-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)