Advocates:
['HUKAM SINGH', '', 'HIMANSHU SHARMA', 'BHAVIT SHARMA', 'SANDEEP SHAH AAG', '', 'PRATYUSHI MEHTA']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3210/2020

Smt. Jhelam Joshi W/o Shri Jayesh Joshi, Aged About 26 Years,

Resident Of C/o Mathuranathji Ka Mandir, Aasni Road, District

Jaisalmer (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,

Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2.

Inspector General, Registration And Stamp, Rajasthan,

Ajmer.

3.

Dy. Inspector General, Registration And Stamp, Jodhpur.

4.

Sub-Registrar, Jhanwar, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Bhavit Sharma with

Mr. Himanshu Sharma.

For Respondent(s)

:

Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for

Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

23/11/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 28/2/2019 (Annex.4), whereby, exercising

the power under Rule 23(2) and 23A read with Rule 86 of the

Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (‘the Rules, 1951’), the petitioner,

who was working as Junior Assistant (Probationer Trainee), has

been dismissed from service.

The petitioner was accorded appointment on the post of LDC

after going through the selection process conducted by RPSC vide

order dated 16/3/2018 and was directed to join her duty under

Sub Registrar, Jhanwar, District Jodhpur.

(2 of 8)

[CW-3210/2020]

As the petitioner had given birth to a baby boy on 1/3/2018,

she applied for extension of joining time for six months but she

was accorded extension for three months and she joined her

duties on 21/5/2018. The petitioner, thereafter applied for

maternity leave under Rule 103 of the Rules, 1951 and her

application was forwarded on 23/5/2018. The petitioner also

moved another application dated 12/6/2018 seeking leave without

pay, however, no order was passed on the said applications. The

petitioner received the impugned order dated 28/2/2019

(Annex.4), whereby, it was indicated that her applications were

rejected on 24/10/2018 and as the petitioner remained absent

from duty since 13/6/2018 without leave, the same was

misconduct as per Clause 13 of her order of appointment dated

16/3/2018 and, therefore, the order impugned dismissing her

from service was passed.

The petitioner made representations indicating that her

services have been terminated without affording her any

opportunity of hearing. The petitioner sought information

regarding the order dated 24/10/2018, whereby, her applications

for leave were rejected under Right to Information Act, which was

supplied to her under communication dated 20/5/2019 (Annex.9).

The petitioner sought information regarding communication of

order dated 24/10/2018 to her, for which a communication dated

6/1/2020 (Annex.16) was sent by the Sub Registrar, Jhanwar that

neither the order dated 24/10/2018 was received by the office nor

the same was sent to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that

action of the respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service

is ex facie illegal and inhumane. Submissions were made that

(3 of 8)

[CW-3210/2020]

admittedly just before the petitioner was accorded appointment,

she had given birth to a child on 1/3/2018 and pursuant to her

order of appointment dated 16/3/2018 sought extension, which

was granted for three months only and as such, the petitioner was

forced to join her duties on 21/5/2018 and, thereafter, applied for

maternity leave, to which she was entitled as laid down by this

Court in Smt. Neeraj vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B.Civil Writ

Petition No. 4384/2020 decided on 7/12/2020 and upheld by the

Division Bench in State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Neeraj : D.B.Special

Appeal (Writ) No. 376/2021 decided on 4/8/2021, however

maternity leave was not sanctioned to her.

Further, the petitioner was also entitled for child care leave,

which though was applied by her in the form of ‘leave