B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THE issue that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Commissioner of Collegiate Education is justified in excluding the maternity leave, special leave availed by the petitioner for undergoing tubectomy operation and the days on which she was on invigilation work apart from availing of casual leaves and public holidays availed by the petitioner herein to consider her case for regularising her services as Lecturer in Telugu in the 3rd respondent college as per G. O. Ms. No. 328 Education (CE-III) Department, dated 15. 10. 1997. ( 2 ) THE facts which are not in dispute are as follows: ( 3 ) FOR various reasons the government was not giving permission to the private institutions in the State of A. P. for appointing the required staff on regular basis. Therefore those institutions were forced to resort to ad hoc appointments as per the directions given by the Government from time to time. While some of the teaching staff in some of the managements are paid on hourly basis the others are paid consolidated monthly remuneration. In this case the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Telugu on 8. 8. 1989 in a clear aided vacancy and she was being paid a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 1440/- per month. ( 4 ) AS several lecturers had been working on temporary basis for a number of years, there was a demand by the teacher orgainsations for regularisation of their services. Acceding to the request of the organisations, the Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 328 Education (Education-Ill) department dated 15. 10. 1997 wherein certain guidelines were laid down for regularisation of the services of part time lecturers working in private aided colleges in the State. According to the respondents, the writ petitioner fulfilled all conditions except the one stipulated in Clause No. 5 of para 9 of the said G. O. , according to which one has to put in a service of three academic years (i. e.) 360 working days, since the working days per year being 120, as on 30. 7. 1991 or five academic years (i. e.) 600 working days as on 25. 11. 1993. For better understanding Clause 5 is extracted hereunder:"5. only those who have put in a service of 3 academic years as on 30. 7. 1991 or 5 academic years as on 25. 11. 7. 1991 or five academic years (i. e.) 600 working days as on 25. 11. 1993. For better understanding Clause 5 is extracted hereunder:"5. only those who have put in a service of 3 academic years as on 30. 7. 1991 or 5 academic years as on 25. 11. 1993 as the case may be and also continuing in service on the date of issue of these orders are eligible for regularisation. As 120 days are considered to be reasonable number of working days for an academic year, the PTL/ptjls should have put in 360 working days as on 30. 7. 1991 and 600 working days as on 25. 11. 1993. The service put up by the PTL/ptjl in more than one private aided college with or without breaks may be taken into account. Counting of service shall be based on the certificate issued by the concerned RJD (HE) and countersigned by the Commissioner of collegiate Education/commissioner and director of Intermediate Education as the case may be. Such certificate shall be issued by the RJD (HE) based on the certificates issued by the correspondent of the respective college and countersigned by the principal of the private college along with audit for the concerned period. " ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the official respondents, the petitioner worked for only 569 days. The Commissioner arrived at this figure after excluding the following days/period: (1) 67 days availed by the petitioner as maternity leave; (2) 14 days leave from 13. 10. 1993 to 26. 10. 1993 availed by her as Special leave for undergoing family planning operation; (3) 55 days of invigilation duty she attended for Government examinations; (4) Curfew days (10) from 7. 12. 1992 to 16. 12. 1990 at the time of communal riots; (5) 6 days (i. e.) from 7. 12. 1992 to 12. 12. 1992 at the time of demolition of Babri Masjid; and (6) 37 days of Casual Leaves and public holidays availed by her during the service put in by her. ( 6 ) HERE we should keep in mind that the 3rd respondent management sent proposals for regularisation of the petitioner s services by stating that she worked for 715 days from 1989 till 25. 11. 193. But the commissioner refused to regularise her service on the ground that she has not worked for 600 days. ( 6 ) HERE we should keep in mind that the 3rd respondent management sent proposals for regularisation of the petitioner s services by stating that she worked for 715 days from 1989 till 25. 11. 193. But the commissioner refused to regularise her service on the ground that she has not worked for 600 days. Now it is to be seen whether the Commissioner is justified in excluding the days stated (supra) while counting 600 days as stipulated in G. O. Ms. No. 328 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation. ( 7 ) IN the case of part time lecturers working in Government Colleges, the division Bench of A. P. Administrative tribunal in O. A. No. 6199/96 and Batch dated 30. 7. 1998 has taken a view that the lecturers are entitled to count public holidays, maternity leave etc. , on par with the other regular employees for purpose of calculating number of working days to arrive at eligibility for regularisation of services of part time lecturers. But a learned single judge of this Court in W. P. No. 3578/98 and batch dated 7. 10. 1998 has taken the view that the casual leaves and public holidays should not be counted for purpose of computing the period of 600 man days as the G. O. did not specifically state in so many terms. The learned single Judge further held that unless the benefit is specifically conferred, the same cannot be presumed and extended to the persons. ( 8 ) I have gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge. I am not very much convinced with the reasoning given by the learned single Judge more so without considering the scope of Article 43 of the constitution whereunder the State is expected to pay not only living wages but also regulate conditions of work, ensure decent standards of life and full enjoyment of leisure etc. Now it is universally recognised principle that an employee who worked for six days in a week is entitled for a day s holiday on full pay. The issue can be looked at from another angle also. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was absent on any working day. When the college is not working on public holidays and national holidays, the question of employee attending the institution does not arise. The issue can be looked at from another angle also. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was absent on any working day. When the college is not working on public holidays and national holidays, the question of employee attending the institution does not arise. I leave the matter at this stage for the simple reason that the petitioner is on a strong footing with regard to other leaves. ( 9 ) UNDER Article 42 of the Constitution of India, State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. Under F. R. 101 the government made rules regulating the grant to Government servants under its control (a) maternity leave to female Government servants and (b) leave on account of ill health to members of subordinate services etc. Under sub-rule (1) of Subsidiary Rules under Rule 101 (a), competent authority may grant maternity leave on full pay to married female Government servants for a period of ninety days. Under G. O. Ms. No. 254, finandpig. (FW. FRI) Department, dated 10. 11. 1995, the female employees whether they are temporary or permanent are entitled to maternity leave for a period of ninety days. Under sub-clause (2) of Subsidiary rules under Rule 103 (c) maternity leave rules applies to women employees under the government at piece-rates or daily-rates in permanent and quasi-permanent concerns which is extracted hereunder:"2. Subsidiary Rule 1 of the Maternity Leave rules issued under Rule 101 (a) applies to women employed under Government at piece-rates or daily rates in permanent or quasi-permanent concerns". ( 10 ) FOR giving effect to Article 42 of the Constitution of India, the Government of India enacted Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (Act 53 of 1961) (for short the act ) and the same came into force w. e. f. 12th December, 1961. The intendment of the Act is to regulate the employment of women in certain establishments for certain periods before and after child birth and to provide for maternity benefit and certain other benefits. This Act has universal application (i. e.) it applies to all female employees whether working in Government or Governmental organisation or the private establishments or industries. Section 5 of the Act deals with the right to payment of maternity benefit which is extracted herein:"5. This Act has universal application (i. e.) it applies to all female employees whether working in Government or Governmental organisation or the private establishments or industries. Section 5 of the Act deals with the right to payment of maternity benefit which is extracted herein:"5. Right to payment of maternity benefit: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act every woman shall be entitled to, and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wage for the period of her actual absence, that is to say, the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day. " ( 11 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), (2000) 3 scc 224 , while considering the effect of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 to the women engaged on casual basis, categorically held that "the benefits under the Act are applicable to women not only in regular employment but also engaged on casual basis or on muster roll basis on daily wages". ( 12 ) THEIR Lordships referring to the preamble of the Gender Social Justice -Doctrine, observed that "universal declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on 10. 12. 1948, set in motion the universal thinking that human rights are supreme and ought to be preserved at all costs. This was followed by a series of conventions. On 18. 12. 1979, the United Nations adopted the convention on the Elimination of all Forms of discrimination against Woman . The principles contained in Article 11 of this Convention have to be read into the contract of service between the Municipal corporation of Delhi and the women employees (muster roll); and so read these employees immediately become entitled to all the benefits conceived under the Maternity benefit Act, 1961. " ( 13 ) IN the light of the above judgment the action of the official respondents in refusing to count the period of maternity leave availed by her, as duty is not only a discrimination shown against women but negated the Human Rights which are supreme and which are to be preserved at all costs. " ( 13 ) IN the light of the above judgment the action of the official respondents in refusing to count the period of maternity leave availed by her, as duty is not only a discrimination shown against women but negated the Human Rights which are supreme and which are to be preserved at all costs. As India being the Signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the said action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and capricious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 14 ) SECONDLY, the action of the official respondent in refusing to count the special leave availed by the petitioner for undergoing tubectomy operation as duty period, is in violation of Section 9 (a) of the Act, 1961. Section 9 (a) reads as follows:-"9-A. Leave with wages for tubectomy operation :in case of tubectomy operation, a woman shall, on production of such proof as may be prescribed, be entitled to leave with wages at the date of maternity benefit for a period of two weeks immediately following the day of her tubectomy operation. " ( 15 ) ANY action contrary to the statutory mandate has to be declared as nullity in the eye of law. The service conditions of women employees in respect of maternity benefit are governed by the Act and whether the woman employee is an ad hoc employee or a temporary employee, the employer is bound to extend the benefits provided under the Act. Any Executive instruction given by the State Government in contravention of the provisions of the Central Enactment has to be declared as nullity. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to count the Special leave of two weeks for which she is entitled under Section 9 (a) of the Act towards 600 man days for considering the eligibility of the petitioner for getting her services regularised. ( 16 ) IT is not in dispute that every teacher/lecturer whether he or she working in Government or unaided or aided school/college is bound to go for invigilation work as per the orders issued by the University to which the institution is affiliated. ( 16 ) IT is not in dispute that every teacher/lecturer whether he or she working in Government or unaided or aided school/college is bound to go for invigilation work as per the orders issued by the University to which the institution is affiliated. Admittedly the petitioner attended 55 days of invigilation works between March, 1990 and October, 1993 till the end of the public examination in the college where she is working and it is not in dispute that the management paid wages to her during the public examinations. It is known thing that during public examinations, the academic activity in the colleges will be suspended and all the teachers have to assist the Superintendent in-Charge of examination in conducting the public examination peacefully and in an order manner. In fact the management paid salaries for the period for which the petitioner was no invigilation duty. Hence the official respondents gravely erred in not counting the days the petitioner spent on invigilation work towards 600 man days. They also erred in not counting the days for which the college could not work at the time of demolition of Babri Masjid and communal riots (i. e.) 6+10 (16 days) respectively. ( 17 ) AS per G. O. Ms. No. 418 Education department, dated 18-4-1979, the rules of vacation Department are extended to the teachers working in aided institutions and the institutions run by the local bodies. As per para 4 (a) (1) of A. P. Leave Rules, 1933, the absence on casual leave shall be treated as the period spent on duty. Again as per para (4) (a) (2) of the above rules, the period of absence or Government holidays or other days declared to be the holidays by the competent authority be treated as duty period. It is not in dispute that the government of A. P. itself closed the educational institutions due to the outbreak of communal riots and due to the demolition of Babri Masjid and that have taken place between 1990 and 1992. Hence the action of the respondents in not counting the period of absence of the petitioner in those days which were declared to be the public holidays by the Government in computing the 600 man days, is contrary to g. O. Ms. No. 418. Hence the action of the respondents in not counting the period of absence of the petitioner in those days which were declared to be the public holidays by the Government in computing the 600 man days, is contrary to g. O. Ms. No. 418. ( 18 ) IN the light of the foregoing discussion, a writ of mandamus shall issue to the Commissioner of Collegiate education to count (i) the maternity leave availed by the petitioner (ii) the special leave for undergoing the tubcctomy operation; (iii) the days on which the petitioner was on invigilation work; (iv) and the days that were declared as holidays at the time of communal riots and demolition of Babri Masjid and the casual leaves availed by her, as the period spent on duty while computing 600 man days as required under g. O. Ms. No. 328, dated. 15-10-1997 for consideration of the case of the petitioner for regularisation of her services and pass orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needles to observe that the petitioner is entitled to receive the arrears of the salary from the date on which the 3rd respondent-management sent proposals to the official respondents for regularising the services of the petitioners. The official respondents are given eight more weeks to release the arrears in grant-in-aid. ( 19 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.