[2025:RJ-JD:30658]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7975/2025 Swati Dixit W/o Neeraj Kaushik D/o Madan Lal Dixit, Aged About 35 Years, At Present Posted As Block Health Supervisor (Bhs) At District Tuberculosis Officer District Tuberculosis Prevention Centre Udaipur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And Health Department And Mission Director Rajasthan Health Mission, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Udaipur.

3. The Tuberculosis Officer, District Tuberculosis Prevention Center Udaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain for Mr. Mukesh Dave HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

14/07/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue rests covered by the judgment of this Court in Rani Tanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9700/2020 (decided on 01.07.2025).

2. Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the above position of law.

3. In Rani Tanwar (supra), the Court observed and held as under:-

“5. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the position of law as settled by the aforementioned judgments. The position of law remains settled to the extent that even a contractual woman employee would be entitled to the essential benefits including the maternity leave benefit and the same cannot be denied to her on the pretext that she was engaged on contract basis on a consolidated salary.

6. In Hemlata Saraswat (supra), the Court held as under:

“The petitioner, even if working on contract basis, has entered into services under the order dated 15.09.2003 (Annex.1) after having been found fit and eligible by the Selection Committee as stated in the said order. Hers has not been a back door entry. Merely because the respondents would choose to put her on consolidated salary and state it to be a contractual appointment, the fact that she is a woman employee cannot be lost sight of and the essential benefits fundamentally dealing with the very basics of human rights of allowing maternity benefit to the woman cannot be and ought not to have been ignored; and the petitioner ought to have been allowed maternity leave as applied for. It may be pointed out that there had not been any other reason of denying maternity leave to the petitioner except that she was working on consolidated salary on contract basis. Such being a proposition already declared unacceptable, the action of the respondents is not only illegal but mala fide too.

The present one was clearly an avoidable litigation if the authorities concerned would have dealt with the matter with due regard to their constitutional duties and sadly enough they have chosen to proceed in utter disregard of their duties, without regard to the requirements of the rules, and even in disregard to the decisions rendered by this Court. The petition, thus, deserves to be allowed with costs.”

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Dr. Kavita Yadav vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department & Ors.; (2024) 1 SCC 421 while dealing with a situation where the contractual period of service of the employee ended during the currency of her maternity leave period, held as under:

“15. In our opinion, a combined reading of these provisions in the factual context of this case would lead to the conclusion that once the appellant fulfilled the entitlement criteria specified in Section 5(2) of the Act, she would be eligible for full maternity benefits even if such benefits exceed the duration of her contract. Any attempt to enforce the contract duration term within such period by the employer would constitute “discharge” and attract the embargo specified in Section 12(2)(a) of the 1961 Act. The law creates a fiction in such a case by treating her to be in employment for the sole purpose of availing maternity benefits under the 1961 Act.”

8. In view of the ab