Maternity leave benefits under Rule 103 extend to female government servants who give birth within the confinement period, irrespective of their employment status at that time.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-State challenging the order dated 07.12.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4384/2020, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent- petitioner was allowed and it was declared that a female Government Servant is entitled to avail maternity leave if she joins within the period of confinement i.e. 15 days before to three months after the birth of child irrespective of the fact that the child was born prior to the date of joining or before issuance of appointment in service. The respondent-petitioner was allowed all consequential benefits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The facts are not disputed in the present case as the respondent-petitioner gave birth to a child on 15.05.2016 and in pursuance of the appointment order issued for the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI), Grade III on 04.06.2016, she joined on 06.06.2016. After joining, she applied for maternity leave on 21.06.2016. The case of the respondent-petitioner for maternity leave and confirmation was decided by the appellants vide orders dated 13.08.2018 and 17.07.2019.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General vehemently submitted that benefits of maternity leave are not available to the respondent on account of fact that the respondent delivered a child prior to the joining of her services. He further submits that as per Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'), a female government servant is entitled for maternity leave only if she is in service. In the present case, since the respondent was not a Government Servant on the date on which she delivered the child, she was not entitled to maternity leave as per Rule 103 of the Rules. He argues that for being entitled for the maternity leave, a person should be in the services of the State Government then only there will be applicability of Rule 103 of the Rules and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in extending the benefit to the respondent in the present case. He submits that the competent authorities of the Department have rightly rejected the application of the respondent-petitioner for grant of maternity leave and other consequential benefits.

5. Learned counsel strongly contended that the benefit of Rule 103 of the Rules can be extended only to a female government servant, if she is in service and since, the petitioner-respondent was not on the roll of the Government on the date of birth of her child, the benefit of maternity leave could not be extended to her.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by learned Single Judge and submitted that since it is a beneficial legislation and it is a fact that the respondent-petitioner had delivered a child on 15.05.2016 i.e. 19 days before the joining period, the benefit of maternity leave cannot be denied to her.

7. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment dated 07.12.2020 as well as other relevant records of the case.

8. The fact that the respondent delivered a child on 15.05.2016 just before the joining period is not disputed by the parties. It is undisputed that after the delivery of a child, the mother needs rest and a certain period for fulfilling the natal needs of the child. It is of common knowledge that if an employee who has delivered child needs some time to recover from the post delivery issues and to take care of the new born baby. It is precisely for this reason the legislature thought it proper to insert a provision in the shape of Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The view taken by the learned Single Judge thus, is quite natural and to give a complete meaning and purpose to the legislative intent so that the needs of a female employee are taken care of at the time of delivery of a child.

9. The argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that Rule 103 of the Rules is applicable