(1.) By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dtd. 28/6/2013 (Annexure P-10), passed by respondent No.l, whereby, the services of the petitioner were not extended; and order dtd. 24/10/2013 (Annexure P-12), passed by respondent No.l, whereby, the services of the petitioner were terminated as also for issuance of a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of maternity leave to the petitioner w.e.f. 9/4/2013 to 8/10/2013.
(2.) It is contended that the petitioner was appointed to the post ofDistrict Account-cum-Cashier in the office of Senior Medical Officer, Roop Nagar, vide appointment letter dtd. 5/3/2008 (Annexure P-l), on contractual basis under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). The petitioner vide letter dtd. 2/4/2008 (Annexure P-2), was again appointed as such in district SAS Nagar (Mohali) and she worked on different positions on contractual basis and ultimately, she was appointed as Technical Assistant in the office of Nodal Officer, Admn and Establishment vide order dtd. 21/9/2011 (Annexure P-5). Vide letter dtd. 2/4/2012 (Annexure P-6), the contract of the petitioner as well as other employees appointed on contractual basis from 1/4/2012 to 30/6/2012, was extended. The last extension was from April 2013 to 31/3/2014. On 9/4/2013, when the petitioner was eight months' pregnant and on account of same, developed some complications and submitted her application and proceeded for leave. To the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, she received office order dtd. 28/6/2013 (Annexure P-10), to the effect that respondent No.l had terminated contract of the petitioner on the ground of her proceeding of un-sanctioned leave. Aggrieved against the action of the respondents, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dtd. 20/7/2013 (Annexure P-ll) with a request that her services may be resumed and benefits of maternity leave be also extended to her. However, vide impugned letter dtd. 24/10/2013 (Annexure P-12), the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that "there is no rule or provision under which the contractual staff in RCH Programme is entitled for maternity leave." At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he restricts his claim to reinstatement of the petitioner in service along with benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 i.e. payment of salary and other allowance for six months. The petitioner does not claim any arrears of pay etc.
(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the seat vacated by the petitioner stands occupied by another officer, however, this is another post of Technical Assistant (B) under the CTI scheme in the office of State Institute of Health and Family Welfare, Phase VI, Mohali, lying vacant. Heard.