JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Nurse Grade-II on consolidated salary vide order dated 22/01/2000 (Anx.1). She availed maternity leave for the period from 09/10/2008 to 05/04/2009 (179 days) but but leave was sanctioned for a period of two months and for remaining period leave was sanctioned without pay vide order dated 05/05/2009 (Anx.2) on the premise that she being a contractual employee working on consolidated salary was not entitled to seek protection of Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the controversy raised herein has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court at main seat Jodhpur in DB Special Appeal (W) No.01703/2009 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Smt. Dr. Monika Sharma) vide order dated 24.03.2010 wherein it has been observed that female employees working on temporary basis or consolidated salary no discrimination can be made regarding entitlement for grant of maternity leave in terms of Rule 103 of the Rules. 4. The Division Bench at main seat Jodhpur in the judgment dated 23.04.2010 (supra) taking note of series of judgments, of which reference has been made in the judgment, in detail observed as under:- "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 case of Neetu Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2005 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 676 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. 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." 5. The legal preposition held (supra) has not been controverted by respondent's counsel. 6. In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench, referred to supra, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 05/05/2009 (Anx.2), so far as it has denied maternity leave to the petitioner is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant benefit of maternity leave to the petitioner for the period for which it has been denied under order impugned dated 05/05/2009 (Anx.2) in terms of Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The respondents may ensure compliance within a period of three months. No costs.Petition Allowed. *******