Rajendra Menon, J. - (1.)Petitioner who is working as a Court Manager on contract basis under the administrative control of the District & Sessions Judge, Chhindwara has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 21.08.2015 passed by respondent no.1 rejecting her claim seeking grant of maternity leave in accordance to the leave rules and the benefit granted to regular woman employees working under the administrative control of respondent no.1 & 2.
(2.)Petitioner was appointed after a due process of examination, selection and interview conducted by the High Court as a Court Manager, however, the appointment was made on contract basis on a consolidated salary of Rs.50,000.00 per month and this appointment was made in pursuance to the recommendations made by 13th Finance Commission for the purpose of better administration of the justice system and for development of infrastructures in various Courts throughout the country. The post was sanctioned and payment was also made in accordance to the recommendations made by the 13th Finance Commission but the appointment was made after a due process of selection initiated by the High Court which consisted of preliminary examination, final examination and an interview by the Board constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court. The appointment of the petitioner after following this process vide Annexure P/3 on 03.10.2012 was on contract basis and even though, the contract appointment was initially for a period during which the 13th Finance Commission recommendation was applicable but we can take judicial notice of the fact that the appointment still continue on the requirement of the Court Manager is perennial in nature. The matter of creating a regular cadre and regularizing the service etc. are pending on the administrative side with the High Court and the State Government.
(3.)Be that as it may for the present suffice is to indicate that petitioner being on her family way filed an application seeking benefit of 180 days maternity leave in accordance to the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (hereinafter refer to as the Act of 1961) and consequential amendment made to the same, so also based on the notification and Circular issued by the State Government vide Annexure P/10 on 29 Feb., 1996, implementing the benefit of certain leave rules to temporary and casual employee working in the establishment of the State Government. However, the respondents rejected the same by holding that in view of Clause 10 of the terms and conditions of her appointment as she is only entitled to 13 days' casual leave and 03 days' optional leave and in accordance to the terms and conditions of the benefit cannot confer upon her. Subsequent, representation made to respondent no.1 having also been rejected, petitioner has filed this writ petition.