1. The petitioner as "Rehbar-e-Taleem" in Middle School Yaripora of Anantnag District, applied for three months Maternity Leave on 06.07.2004 which was sanctioned only to the extent of one month without remuneration/honorarium. Aggrieved thereby, she challenges C.E.Os said order no.337 Edu of 2004 dated 16.06.2004 and seeks its quashment on the ground that it violates her constitutional, legal, and other rights. Materials appended with the memo of petition include relevant orders/certificates issued by different authorities. 2. In reply, official respondents have inter alia pleaded that leave was sanctioned to petitioner in terms of Govt. order no. 337 of 2004 whereunder only 30 days maternity leave without honorarium was available to her, because she is not in regular employment of the Government, but on probation for a period of five years, after successful completion whereof, she would be entitled to claim regular appointment and thereafter only the maternity leave benefit under section 14 of J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1979 would be available to her and presently she could not claim the said leave at par with regular Government employees etc. During course of arguments counsel for rival sides have reiterated the contents of their respective pleadings. 3. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. The fact that petitioner has delivered a baby on 09.06.04 in L.D. Hospital is not denied, nor that she applied for maternity leave for three months which was not allowed by concerned C.E.O who while acting under Government order no. 337 Edu of 2004 dated 16.06.2004 allowed only 30 days without any honorarium/remuneration. In admitted circumstances as such, the moot question that emerges for consideration is petitioners title to maternity leave at par with Govt. employees and the resultant validity of aforesaid Government order whereunder maternity leave of 30 days only is allowed to RTs. 4. To start with , it would be appropriate to notice that under a scheme promulgated under the Government order no. 396 Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 commonly known as "Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme" the Government chose to engage qualified local candidates for certain Government schools so as to assure full time attendance of teachers in schools. According to scheme, the R.Ts to be appointed from amongst a panel required to be prepared by the concerned Village Level Committee with approval of the concerned officers of Education Department and a committee headed by concerned Dy. According to scheme, the R.Ts to be appointed from amongst a panel required to be prepared by the concerned Village Level Committee with approval of the concerned officers of Education Department and a committee headed by concerned Dy. Commissioner are initially engaged on monthly remuneration/honorarium of Rs.1500/- with a stipulation that after putting in five years as such they would be entitled for appointment in regular cadre as teachers in the concerned schools. It appears that in the original scheme there was no provision regarding grant of casual/medical and earned leave etc which ultimately was provided for in June 2004 vide aforesaid order No. 337 of 2004, which is reproduced herein below verbatim:- "In government order no. 396 Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 after the para relating to "Payment of Honorarium" the following shall be added. Entitlement of leave; A person engaged under the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme shall be entitled to:- i. 15 days casual leave in a calendar year with honorarium. ii. 30 days leave without honorarium on account of accident, serious illness and maternity in a calendar year. iii. The leave so availed shall not constitute a break in continuous engagement as such. This issue with the concurrence of Finance Department conveyed vide their U.O no. A/9(77) 340 dated 31.5.2004..." Thus, a person engaged as R.T under the scheme would besides 15 days casual leave per year with honorarium be entitled to 30 days leave on account of accident, serious illness, and maternity, but without any honorarium with a stipulation that the leave period would not constitute a break in the engagement. In terms of order, therefore, what appears to entitle RTs to 30 days leave would be either an accident, or serious illness, or maternity. Incidentally the order is too cryptic and short to have anything by way of a preamble, explanation, or appendix, which could reflect the considerations and features/factors, those have gone into making thereof; particularly with reference to maternity leave which has unusually be restricted to 30 days without honorarium/remuneration. There is also nothing in the said order nor has anything been brought forward to suggest as to what necessitated or occasioned deviation from the usual period available to female employees in case of maternity leave. There is also nothing in the said order nor has anything been brought forward to suggest as to what necessitated or occasioned deviation from the usual period available to female employees in case of maternity leave. It may be appropriate to notice the provisions of Rule 41(1) of J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1979 at this stage, whereunder 135 days maternity leave is permissible to female employees alongwith 15 days to their male spouse in the following terms:- "A female Govt. Servant with less than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave by the authority competent to grant leave for a period which may extend upto 135 days from the date of its commencement. During such period she shall be paid leave salary equal to pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave." In terms thus the maternity leave rule applicable to female RTs is materially different from the general rule above quoted; for which no explanation is forth-coming from any where. 5. An omission to indicate reason for departure from the above said Rule which by now is well settled and generally accepted, becomes conspicuous because ordinarily it would be very difficult to draw a line of distinction between a female employee here and a female employee there in so far as the question of maternity and attending inconvenience/difficulties etc is concerned, irrespective of the nature of their employment. If those at the helm have in their wisdom thought it necessary to prescribe 135 days maternity leave pre/post delivery for female employees irrespective of the nature or status of their employment that essentially suggests that the factum of their being females and the uncertainties/expediencies attending motherhood and pre/post natal care of the child and not the type of employment is the cause and justification for the same. This means that the government order relied upon by the respondents is not only wanting in its own terms but does not even subscribe to the standard set forth under the leave rules aforesaid. This means that the government order relied upon by the respondents is not only wanting in its own terms but does not even subscribe to the standard set forth under the leave rules aforesaid. That the female RTs being only employees on probation do not qualify for full dressed maternity leave like regular female employees, is a statement whereunder they appear to have been constituted into a class by themselves and then discriminated against, without any regard for the fact that given the demands of mother-hood and attending circumstances along with the nature and magnitude of accompanying inconvenience, which would certainly not be different whatever the class, cadre/nature and status of a female employees employment. This strongly suggests an objective review/reconsideration of the aforesaid government order. 6. In subjective context the matter assumes a larger dimensions, because it overflows the contours of an individual case or a singular instance and almost borders on the rights of women and obligation of the State to protect and preserve them, to which, besides statutory/constitutional considerations, the international covenants also bind the government. Reference in this behalf may be made to "Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women" adopted by Community of nations on 18.12.79 to which government of India too is the signatory; Article 11 para (2) whereof reads as under: (as reflected in a Supreme Court Judgment reported as (2000) 3 SCC 224. "2. In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States/Parties shall take appropriate measures: (a) to prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave and discrimination is dismissals on the basis of marital status: (b) to introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances; (c) to encourage the provision of the necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life, in particular through promoting the establishment and development of a network of child-care facilities; (d) to provide special protection to women during pregnancy in types of work proved to be harmful to them". "3. "3. Protective legislation relating to matters covered in this article shall be reviewed periodically in the light of scientific and technological knowledge and shall be revised, repealed or extended as necessary. " Coupled therewith is the constitutional mandate of section 22 of the State Constitution read with Article 42 of the Constitution of India, whereunder among other things the right to maternity benefits as well as adequate medical care in all employment with regard to women is provided for. Read together these provisions, make it compulsory for the State to amend the maternity leave rules in relation to its female employees without reference to the nature or length or status of their service. Reference in this behalf may be made to above said judgment of apex court in "Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers" [(2000) 3 SCC 224], whereunder while considering grant of maternity leave in favour of female workers on muster roll as different from regular female workers, the Honble court upheld the decision of concerned Industrial Tribunal, allowing claim of muster roll female workers and directed Delhi Municipal Corporation to extend the benefit of maternity leave to them under maternity benefit Act 1961. Few passages from the said judgment may be quoted with benefit. In para 6 of the judgment while considering constitutional contours of the matter the Honble Court observed as under:- "6. ........ It is in this background that we have to look our Constitution which, in its Preamble, promises social and economic justice. We may first look at the fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. Article 14 provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Dealing with this article vis-a-vis the labour laws, this Court in Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. Workmen has held that labour to whichever sector it may belong in a particular region and in a particular industry will be treated on equal basis. Article 15 provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Clause (3) of this article provides as under: "15.(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children." "7. Article 15 provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Clause (3) of this article provides as under: "15.(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children." "7. In Yousuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay it was held that Article 15(3) applies both to existing and future laws." In light of the above quoted para even if one tends to think that RTs cannot be equated with workers under Labour Laws, still then the consideration of equal protection could be invoked in their favour on the basis that while female employees employed in the Government in other capacities and jobs are given, 135 days maternity leave, the female RTs can perhaps for the purpose of such leave not be converted into a separate class for differential treatment to their detriment particularly because the benefit of maternity leave flows from the fact of womanhood which does not admit of any sub-classification. However, proceeding further Honble Apex court was also pleased to observe:- "8. From part III, we may shift to Part IV of the Constitution containing the Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 38 provides that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the national life. Sub-clause (2) of this article mandates that the State shall strive to minimize the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities." 9. Article 39 provides, inter alia , as under: "39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State. The state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing-- (a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. Article 39 provides, inter alia , as under: "39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State. The state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing-- (a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. (b) -- (c) * * * * (d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women; (e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women , and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocation unsuited to their age or strength; (f) * * * *" Adverting to applicability of maternity benefit Act as canvassed by the learned counsel before apex court by contending that the Act not having been extended to the Delhi Municipal Corporation, the benefit available to female employees/workers thereunder could not be given to them, the Honble Court in para 32 and 33 of the judgment made following observation:- "32......This is a narrow way of looking at the problem which essentially is human in nature and anyone acquainted with the working of the Constitution, which aims at providing social and economic justice to the citizens of this country, would outrightly reject the contention. The relevance and significance of the doctrine of social justice has, times out of number, been emphasized by this Court in several decisions. In "Crown Aluminium Works v. Workmen" this Court observed that the Constitution of India seeks to create a democratic, welfare State and secure social and economic justice to the citizens. In "J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India" Gajenjdragadkar J.,(as his Lordship then was), speaking for the Court, said: " Indeed, the concept of social justice has now become such an integral part of industrial law that it would be idle for any party to suggest that industrial adjudication can or should ignore the claims of social justice in dealing with industrial disputes. The concept of social justice is not narrow , or one-sided, or pedantic, and is not confined to industrial adjudication alone. Its sweep is comprehensive. The concept of social justice is not narrow , or one-sided, or pedantic, and is not confined to industrial adjudication alone. Its sweep is comprehensive. It is founded on the basic ideal of socioeconomic equality and its aim is to assist the removal of socioeconomic disparities and inequalities; nevertheless, in dealing with industrial matters, it does not adopt a doctrinaire approach and refuses to yield blindly to abstract notions, but adopts a realistic and pragmatic approach." "33. A just social order can be achieved only when inequalities are obliterated and everyone is provided what is legally due. Women who constitute almost half of the segment of our society have to be honoured and treated with dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood. Whatever be the nature of their duties, their avocation and the place where they work, they must be provided all the facilities to which they are entitled. To become a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realize the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in performing her duties at the work-place while carrying a baby in the womb or while rearing up the child after birth. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 aims to provide all these facilities to a working woman in a dignified manner so that she may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, peaceably, undeterred by the fear of being victimized for forced absence during the pre-or post-natal period." Looking at the subject in view of the Constitutional Principles mentioned above and the scope of their application as envisaged, it appears that the government order under discussion does not fully conform to either the Constitutional requirements or the general demands of social and class justice that has continuously been stressed upon by all High Courts and apex Court to bring round the State to regulate its activities whether administrative or legislative, within the frame work of fundamental rights and in accordance with the directive principles, an essential component whereof is a compassionate approach and attitude towards women. Instantly the Govt. Instantly the Govt. order under reference does not appear to conform to the norms and standards formulated and prescribed by the apex court from precedent to precedent and ultimately developed into a cluster of binding principles. 7. Accordingly, and in view of what has been stated above, 30 days limitation on maternity leave available to female RTs as against 135 days available to other female employees, as proper re-cast. That two spells of maternity leave of 135 days each that a RT may avail during five years of probation may result in reducing the period of actual teaching experience by eight months, can be suitably taken care of cannot be approved of or acknowledged, and as such requires to be reconsidered. However, till government forms appropriate alternate rules, the female RTs would be governed by provisions of the Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1979, in so far as the maternity leave is concerned. In the result the with-holding of remuneration/honorarium of petitioner for 30 days of earned leave availed by her is directed to be released in her favour. 8. The matter stands accordingly disposed of along with all connected CMP(s). Copies of this order be communicated to all the CEOs besides Director Education, Commissioner/Secretary Education and the Chief Secretary of the State, and publicized for information of RTs.