- (1.) IN challenge is the judgment and order dated 24.9.2013 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4053/2010.
(2.) WE have heard Mr.P.R.Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.L.K.Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents. The respondent -writ petitioner had approached this Court with the aforementioned writ petition pleading that she had been initially appointed as Sankul Sahyogini under the Lok Jumbish Project vide order dated 30.7.1997 and on the termination of the said Project, vide order dated 23.12.2004, she was absorbed in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan after due selection, whereafter she was inducted in the post of Cluster Resource Centre Facilitator (for short, hereinafter referred to as "CRCF"). She was subsequent thereto appointed on the post of Prabodhak by the order dated 1.10.2008. According to her, while she was serving under the Lok Jumbish Project, she had been granted maternity leave in the year 2001. Thereafter, she gave birth to a second child in the month of Feb.2006 and availed maternity leave from 20.2.2006 to 19.6.2006. However, she not having been allowed maternity leave and salary for that period, submitted a representation on 24.3.2007 seeking the same. According to her, the Rajasthan Elementary Education Council, Jaipur (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Council") in its meeting held on 10.1.2005 had decided to grant maternity and paternity leave to the persons, who were working under the Lok Jumbish Project. This was affirmed by the order dated 6.1.2007 of the Director of the Council to the effect that such persons would be allowed maternity leave as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). However, as inspite of the above affirmations, maternity leave and the salary for that period was not granted to her, she approached this Court.
(3.) THE respondents no.2 and 3 (appellants -herein) in their reply averred that the respondent -writ -petitioner was a contractual employee under the Lok Jumbish Project and on the abolition of thereof, she and other employees were offered the opportunity to render services under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan purely on annual contract basis. They denied the respondent -writ -petitioner's claim of having been appointed in the post of CRCF. They questioned the tenability of the writ petition also on the ground that she had failed to substantiate with documentary proof that she had experienced matured delivery. They clarified that for the purpose of grant of maternity leave, it is 120 days in case of matured delivery, but is much less in case of miscarriage of pregnancy. They contended further that the incumbents, who were initially appointed under the Lok Jumbish Project and thereafter, had been rendering services under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan on contract basis had been decided to be allowed the benefit of maternity leave only after the resolution dated 8.11.2006 to the said effect which was eventually proclaimed by the order dated 6.1.2007. According to the answering respondents, therefore, the respondent -writ -petitioner was not entitled to maternity leave as her child had been born in the month of February, 2006 i.e. much prior to the effective date i.e. 8.11.2006.;