S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a qualified Architect, was initially appointed by the respondents (hereafter called as rites ) and was offered contractual appointment for a period of six months on 8. 10. 1997. Her contract was renewed after expiry of the six months period; she continued in the employment of RITES. By these proceedings, she is questioning the impugned order dated 13th December, 2000 which states that the contractual engagement ceased from 16. 10. 2000 and that she was no- longer in the rolls of the organisation after that date. The petitioner s request for release of maternity leave benefits was also declined.

( 2 ) AT the outset, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner gave up the claim in prayer b for reinstatement and consequential benefits. The claim in the petition was confined to the release of maternity benefits.

( 3 ) THE petitioner avers that her services were continued and she was working uninterruptedly till she applied for maternity leave on 15. 10. 2000. It is averred by that application the RITES was intimated that the petitioner was proceeding on maternity leave from 11. 11. 2000 onwards till further notice. The petitioner further avers that rites did not reply to this notice and by the impugned order, referred to the last letter dated 23. 5. 2000, and stated that the period of her engagement was to come to an end upon expirty of six months. The petitioner made representations on 10. 11. 2001 and 24. 12. 2001 inter alia for release of maternity benefits. The RITES however did not accept the request. Hence, she has approached this court for appropriate directions.

( 4 ) THE respondents in their counter affidavit have denied the claim. They averred that the petitioner was engaged on purely contractual basis and that her period of engagement came to an end on 16. 10. 2000. They have further denied the receipt of letter dated 15. 10. 2000; it is alleged that the letter was in fact given to the RITES on 17. 11. 2000. The respondents have also placed on record copies of letters written on 21. 6. 2000, 17. 7. 2000, 4. 8. 2000 and 19. 9. 2000 by which medical leave was sought. It is further alleged that the petitioner accepted her termination as evidenced by a duly filled form No. 19, which was an application for release of provident fund and other dues, furnished to the respondent RITES under cover of a letter dated 11. 9. 2001. In these circumstances, the respondents have alleged that the claims in these petitions are after thought and belated. It is also alleged that the petitioner collected all her dues on 7. 12. 2001 from the RITES.

( 5 ) MS. Rachna Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Maternity benefit Act, 1961 entitled the petitioner to leave as well as maternity bonus and irrespective of the merits of the claim for reinstatement, those benefits could not be withheld. She has relied upon Sections 3,4 and 5 of the maternity Benefit Act 1961 to say that its provisions are universally applicable and that the RITES being a State agency is also bound by the Drective Principles of State policy as also Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of india. It is further submitted that the grant of maternity benefit is not a matter of charity; it is a positive mandate of law as has been held by the Supreme court in its judgment reported as Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll), AIR 2000 SC 1274. It was submitted that the Supreme Court held that even daily wage employees on muster rolls are entitled to the benefits under the Act.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submitted that the entire attempt in these proceedings to paint RITES as a heartless employer is not justified. He submitted that the petitioner was well aware that her engagements were coming to an end on 16. 10. 2000. Hence, the question of granting or depriving her benefits did not arise. He also submitted that having secured all the benefi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document