JUDGMENT 1. This intra-court appeal filed against the order dated 09.07.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.6146/2006 is reported to be barred by limitation by 415 days. However, in the circumstances of the case, we have considered the matter on merits while ignoring the delay. 2. The writ petition aforesaid was filed by the respondent (writ petitioner), said to be working as Nurse Gr.II with the appellants, stating her grievance against denial of maternity leave. It was an admitted case of both the parties before the learned Single Judge that the matter stood squarely covered by the decisions of this Court and, accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The learned Single Judge said,- "Since both the learned counsel submit that the matter is squarely covered by the judgments of this Court delivered in Smt. Neetu Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2005 (5) RDD 1144 (Raj.) and Smt. Sushila Parmar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6142 of 2006, decided on 29.05.2007 , therefore, this writ petition is also allowed. The respondents are directed to sanction maternity leave to the petitioner as applied by her and all benefits consequential thereto be given to here within a period of two months from the date the certified copy of this order placed before the competent authority by the petitioner." 3. It is sought to be contended in this appeal that the writ petitioner is not entitled for the benefits under the Rajasthan Service Rules for having not been appointed on regular basis; and the learned Single Judge has erred in granting benefits that are not available to the respondent-writ petitioner as per her service conditions. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having considered the law applicable to the case, we are clearly of opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. 5. This Court has consistently held that the female employees, employed whether on temporary basis or on consolidated salary, are entitled to maternity leave. In the above referred case of Neetu Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , a learned Single Judge of this Court held the employee, appointed as Nurse Gr.II on urgent temporary basis on consolidated salary, entitled to maternity leave. In the above referred case of Neetu Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , a learned Single Judge of this Court held the employee, appointed as Nurse Gr.II on urgent temporary basis on consolidated salary, entitled to maternity leave. In the appeal taken by the appellant-State against the said decision in Neetu Choudhary's case, being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 02542/2006 (DRJ), a Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal on 31.10.2006, pronounced rather heavily against the posture adopted by the Department and said,- ''A bizarre argument has been advanced by the appellant in this case. The appointment against the sanctioned post under the rules being offered, the respondent was appointed after regular selection. However, other benefits along with benefit of maternity leave are being denied to the women employees of the State, which is against the very basic norms of equality of law and, moreover, on the one hand the Government at all forums is talking about the gender equality, gender justice and betterment of status of women and, on the other hand, it is denying the benefit of maternity leave to its own employees under the guise that appointment is not under the regular Rules, forgetting it that appointment in first place was given after due selection by following regular process of selection. On the first principles of a welfare State, her appointment cannot be treated as a back-door entry to deny the basic benefit of maternity leave to women employees of the State.'' 6. The writ petitioner, even if working on urgent temporary basis and on consolidated salary, has not secured back-door entry. Merely because the appellants would choose to put her on consolidated salary, the fact that she is a woman employee cannot be lost sight of. The essential benefits fundamentally dealing with the very basics of human rights cannot be and ought not to have been ignored; and the writ 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 writ petitioner except that she was working on consolidated salary. Such a proposition having already been pronounced against, the action of the appellants in denying maternity leave to the writ petitioner was entirely inexplicable. 7. It may be pointed out that there had not been any other reason of denying maternity leave to the writ petitioner except that she was working on consolidated salary. Such a proposition having already been pronounced against, the action of the appellants in denying maternity leave to the writ petitioner was entirely inexplicable. 7. The learned Single Judge has not committed any error in allowing the writ petition and granting the reliefs prayed for. 8. The appeal remains bereft of substance and is, therefore, dismissed on merits.Appeal Dismissed. *******