JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 by which petitioner's writ petition for setting aside the order dated 06.03.2021, has been dismissed finding no merit.

2. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the learned Single Judge is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition relying upon Rules, 3, 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012 (for brevity 'the Rules, 2012') by recording a finding which is perverse to the record and by not following the binding decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Devshree Bandhe v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited & Others, WPS No.101/2017, decided on 20.02.2017, therefore, order dated 06.03.201 is liable to be set aside and petitioner/appellant herein be granted salary/wages for the maternity period i.e. from 01.02.2020 to 31.07.2020.

3. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 5, would submit that the Rules, 2012 would not be applicable in the present case as the petitioner/appellant herein was appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator on job rate basis on 21.10.2011 and as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order, the petitioner/appellant herein is not entitled for any leave including maternity leave as neither the appellant was working as daily wager employee nor contractual employee nor permanent employee of the Marketing Federation. He further submits that Clause 4 of the terms and conditions of appointment order of the petitioner/appellant herein would show that the petitioner/appellant herein would not be treated as employee of Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation for any purpose, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is strictly in accordance with law and the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records.

5. Undisputedly, respondent No.3 appointed the petitioner/appellant herein on job rate basis by order dated 29.09.2010 and in the appellant's appointment order, it was mentioned that the wages shall be paid on the basis of job done. It was also provided in the order of appointment that the monthly wages would not exceed Rs.6400/- and further that on account of any absence from duty, the proportionate deduction shall be made. But, thereafter, in terms of the said order of appointment, the petitioner/appellant herein continued on the post of Data Entry Operator giving her services to the Office of District Marketing Officer, Kanker till the petitioner/appellant herein submitted her application for grant of maternity leave on 01.02.2020, on account of her advanced stage of pregnancy, as the due date for delivery was 11.02.2020. However, vide order dated 06.03.2021, the application submitted by the petitioner/appellant herein was rejected on the ground that respondent No.3, Federation, does not have any enabling rule for grant of maternity leave to job rated employees. It is apparent on the record that the petitioner/appellant herein was appointed on 29.09.2010 and since then she was working in the Federation as job rated employee on the post of Data Entry Operator. The nature of job discharged by the petitioner was, therefore, perennial in nature as she continued for almost 10 years in the same establishment and was receiving monthly wages as is evident from the order of appointment and the order of appointment having referred to her appointment as job rated employee is only misnomer and in fact, the petitioner/appellant herein was working as a contractual employee in the said establishment.

6. The State of Chhattisgarh has already framed the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012 and by way of Notification dated 20.09.2018, Rule 13 was substituted wherein the Rule 13 (2) categorically prov