Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sarita vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/013912]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3229/2019
Sarita D/o Shri Shishram W/o Shri Ajay Mahan, Aged About 29
Years, Village Devgaon, Post Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh,
District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum
Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Panchayati
Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Raj.).
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.
4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sujangarh,
District Churu.
5. Chief Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Sujangarh, District Churu.
6. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer (PEEO)-Cum
Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School Bobasar Bidavatan,
Panchayat Samiti Sujangarh, District Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anjali Kaushik for Mr. Shreekant
Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarwan Kumar for Mr. Hemant
Choudhary
Mr. K.K. Bissa
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
08/05/2023
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against non-grant of maternity leave to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
[2023/RJJD/013912] (2 of 3) [CW-3229/2019]
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment
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.
3. 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."
4. Learned counsel for the respondents are 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.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
is allowed. 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).
[2023/RJJD/013912] (3 of 3) [CW-3229/2019]
6. 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.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
121-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
