(1.) Petitioner Smt. Sarbjit Kaur was appointed as a Teacher on regular basis. Her appointment alongwith certain other teachers was challenged in this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5985 of 1994. The appointment of the petitioner and other teachers was quashed. Thereafter the petitioner has been appointed on ado basis for 89 days. The appointment is alleged to be as a stop gap arrangement and was extended from time to time after a break. She was working as a Mathematic Teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Kishanpura. On 4.9.1995 petitioner submitted an application for maternity leave. She was instructed by the Principal that since her appointment is only for 89 days, she is not entitled to maternity leave. The result was that she submitted an application for leave only. She was blessed with a child on 26.9.1995. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant her maternity leave and all other benefits of the service. It is contended that in accordance with the instructions issued by the Education Department in the year 1988 the persons who were appointed on adhoc basis are entitled to maternity leave. Her grievance further is that in similar cases maternity leave had been granted.
(2.) The petition as such had been opposed. In the reply filed by the District Education Officer, Ropar if is not being disputed that earlier petitioner was appointed on regular basis but in CWP No. 5985 of 1994 the appointment of the petitioner and others was quashed. Respondents case is that in the interest of students, petitioner was appointed for 89 days basis. As per the respondents the persons who are appointed purely on stop gap arrangement are not entitled to maternity leave. The same is available only to regular teachers. The petitioner is stated to have been relieved of her duties on 23.9.1995. She re-joined on 26.9.1995. She has submitted an application on 4.9.1995 seeking medical leave upto 22.9.1995. Since the petitioner was only employed for 89 days, the defence was that she could not get maternity leave.
(3.) The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner is a Government servant and even if she was employed temporarily for 89 days, she was entitled to the maternity leave. In this regard he relied upon certain precedents to be discussed hereinafter. The Punjab Civil Services Rules, Chapter 8.137-A.refers to the grant of maternity leave and reads: