Mamta Kumari Meena v. The State Of Rajasthan
High Court
24 Sep 2021 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Mamta Kumari Meena v. The State Of Rajasthan
Date of order
24 Sep 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Mamta Kumari Meena v. The State Of Rajasthan, the High Court (2021) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9586/2020
Mamta Kumari Meena D/o Kanhaiya Lal Meena, Aged About 32Years, R/o 170/2, Income Tax Colony, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur,Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal EducationSecretary, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.Secretary, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), SecondaryEducation, Bikaner.Education, Bikaner.
4. The Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, LikhmisarUtarda, Sridungargarh, District Bikaner.Utarda, Sridungargarh, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini.For Respondent(s):
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
24/09/2021
Order
An application has been filed by the petitioner seekingdisposal of the writ petition.
For the reasons indicated in the application, the same isallowed.
The matter is taken up for orders.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner thatissue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered byjudgment of Division Bench in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Neeraj:D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.376/2021 decided on 04.08.2021 atprincipal seat, Jodhpur.
In the case of Smt. Neeraj (Supra), the Division Benchupheld the Single Bench judgment and inter-alia observed asunder:-
“We are in complete agreement with the viewtaken by the learned Single Judge that since it is abeneficial legislation and if a female governmentservant is giving birth to a child within the stipulatedperiod of confinement i.e. 15 days before to threemonths after the birth of the child, she will beentitled to maternity leave. The argument of thelearned Additional Advocate General that therespondent was not a Government Servant at thetime of delivery of a child has no merit andtherefore, the same is liable to be rejected in thelight of the discussions made hereinabove. It isreiterated that the purpose and intention of therule-making authority is to facilitate the femalegovernment employees by extending the benefit ofmaternity leave at the time of delivery of the child.In view of the discussions made above, thejudgment dated 07.12.2020 passed by learnedSingle Judge is upheld and the appeal is dismissedbeing bereft of merit.”
In view of the determination made by the Division Bench,
the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with directions tothe respondents that in case as per the judgments the petitioneris entitled, grant her relief, in accordance with the determinationmade by the learned Single Bench as well as the Division Bench,copy, whereof, would be supplied by the petitioner with therespondents.
Needful be done by the respondents within a period of fourweeks from the date a copy of this order and the judgments ispresented by the petitioner to the competent respondent.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
105-SACHIN KHUSHWAHA /685
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.