ORDER : SANJAY YADAV, J. This appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, takes exception to order dated 14-2-2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 183/2017 whereby learned Single Judge while affirming the order dated 6-12-2016 terminating the petitioner has dismissed the petition. 2. Engaged as Assistant Warden on contract till March, 2013 by order dated 13-7-2012 passed by Chief Executive Officer cum District Project Officer, Jila Shiksha Kendra Morena, on a fixed honorarium of? 9815/-, the contract period was extended from time to time. That during the subsistence of contract petitioner gave birth to a child in March, 2016 which led the respondent invoke Clause 2 of the eligibility criteria that ^^fookfgr efgykvksa dh fLFkfr esa ,slh efgyk;sa ftuds cPps 5 o"kZ ls NksVs u gksA** and prevented the petitioner from discharging her duties which led her to file a Writ Petition 3258/2016 which was disposed of on 11-11-2016 with liberty to the petitioner to file representation and direction to respondent to consider the same. On consideration fresh orders came to be passed on 6-12-2016, rejecting the petitioner's representation and affirming her non-continuation. The reasons which find mention in the impugned order are: ^^4- Jhefr lquhrk n.Mksfy;k }kjk ÁLrqr vkosnu fnukad 16-3-2016 esa larku mRiUu gksus dh fLFkfr esa fnukad 16-3-2016 ls 10 fnol rd Álwfr vodk'k Ánku djus dk ys[k fd;k rFkk vodk'k vkosnu Lohd`fr ugha gksus ds ckn Hkh vukf/kd`r :i ls vodk'k ij jgdj lafonk fu;qfDr esa fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk@'krZ ^^ckfydk Nk=kokl esa iw.kZdkfyd :i ls jgus gsrq lsokHkkoh rFkk lg~n;k gks** dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA 5- Jhefr lquhrk n.Mksfy;k] lgk;d okMZu dk larku mRiUu gks tkus dh fLFkfr esa ,d ek¡ gksus ds ukrs Jhefr lquhrk n.Mksfy;k dk ÁFke nkf;Ro viuh larku ds Áfr gksus ls vkoklh; Nk=kokl esa jg jgh leLr ckfydkvksa ds lkFk iw.kZ U;k; ugha gks ldsxk ftlls 'kklu }kjk ckfydk Nk=kokl esa f'kf{kdk lg okMZu ds in dh ea'kk dk fØ;kUo;u ugha gks ldsxkA** It is, this order which has been affirmed by the learned single Judge holding: “Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis on a fixed honorarium. The contractual employment neither creates any legal right nor the same is enforceable under any service rule as there are no such rules governing the service conditions. In the circumstances, the petitioner has no right to continue. The contractual employment neither creates any legal right nor the same is enforceable under any service rule as there are no such rules governing the service conditions. In the circumstances, the petitioner has no right to continue. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she had applied for leave on 16-3-2016 as she was about to deliver a baby by itself does not confer any right upon her as there is no occasion for her to apply for extension and further there is no order for sanctioning her leave. Obviously, for the reason that she was not in employment. In the circumstances, it clearly mentions that the petitioner is not competent to hold the post. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has no legal right to continue. Hence, the Writ Petition being devoid of any merit and substance is hereby dismissed.” 3. Parties are heard at length. 4. Question is as to whether giving birth to a child during subsistence of a contract can be treated to be a disqualification and merely because an incumbent has not attended the duty for a period of 10 days would tantamount to a breach of contract as would empower the respondent to terminate the service. 5. True it is that the petitioner was initially engaged till March, 2013 on contract basis. However, the contractual appointment has been extended from time to time indicating that the job for which she was engaged is of perennial in nature. The respondents have not commended to any such statutory provisions or a term in contract that an unmarried lady engaged on contract cannot contract a marriage during subsistence of the contract nor that if married during the contractual period will render her ineligible if she gives berth to a child. When there is no such term in contract its beyond any comprehension that a woman employed on contract for a service which is of perennial nature would be rendered ineligible for extension of such contract service, though on previous occasions the contract has been extended. 6. As regards the stand of the respondent that the petitioner remained absent for 10 days which has led to termination of contract. The facts reveal that during said 10 days she was absent because a child is bom and was on maternity care. 7. 6. As regards the stand of the respondent that the petitioner remained absent for 10 days which has led to termination of contract. The facts reveal that during said 10 days she was absent because a child is bom and was on maternity care. 7. True it may be that Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 are not applicable to the contractual employees whereunder Rule 38 and 38-A provide for maternity and paternity leave. However, a Division Bench of this High Court in Mrs. Priyanka Gujarkar Shrivastava v. Registrar General, Writ Petition No. 17004/2015 decided on 2-3-2017 while dwelling on the issue as to whether the benefit of maternity leave to the woman employee working on contract basis can be granted, answered the same in favour of contractual employee after relying on the decision by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), (2000) 3 SCC 224 . The Division Bench held : “13. Finally, if we analyse the judgment further we find that in paragraph 37, the universal declaration of Human Rights as adopted by United Nations on 10-12-1948 is taken note of and the “Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women” which was adopted by the United Nations on 18-12-1979 is taken note of and Article 11 of the aforesaid Convention has been reproduced. Article 11 of the Convention for the sake of convenience reads as under: “Article 11 1. Article 11 of the Convention for the sake of convenience reads as under: “Article 11 1. States/Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in particular; (a) The right to work as an inalienable right of all human beings; (b) The right to the same employment opportunities, including the application of the same criteria for selection in matters of employment; (c) The right to free choice of profession and employment, the right to promotion, job security and all benefits and conditions of service and the right to receive vocational training and retraining, including apprenticeships, advanced vocational training and recurrent training; (d) The right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value, as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work; (e) The right to social security, particularly in cases of retirement, unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age and other incapacity to work, as well as the right to paid leave. (f) The right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of reproduction.” 14. If we go through the aforesaid provision, we find that in the matter of imposition of sanction there is a total prohibition in the matter of discrimination or denial of benefit on grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave to a woman employee. On the contrary, the United Nation Convention mandates that there should be introduced a maternity leave with pay or with compatible social benefit without loss of former employment to every woman working in the World. On the contrary, the United Nation Convention mandates that there should be introduced a maternity leave with pay or with compatible social benefit without loss of former employment to every woman working in the World. It is after taking note of all these factors that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the writ petition in the case of Female Muster Roll Employees of the Delhi Municipal Corporation and if we apply the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, as we have held herein above, we have no hesitation in holding that in the case of the present petitioner and other female employees working in the establishment of the respondents, be in whatever capacity they are, as far conferral of maternity benefits are concerned, they are entitled to all the benefit that is given to a regular employee in the establishment of the State Government for the purpose of maternity leave and other connected benefits. 15. We find that vide notification (Annexure P/10) dated 29-2-1996, the State Government has made all the leave rules applicable to a regular employee of the State Government, applicable to casual employees and temporary employees working in the State of Madhya Pradesh, it that be so, we are of the considered view that the petitioner would be entitled to maternity leave at par with a regular employee working in the establishment of the respondents or in any other establishment of the State Government and in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on account of the fact that she was only a contract employee an error has been committed by the respondents which has to be remedied by us in this petition.” 8. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by their Lordships. In view whereof the petitioner a contractual employee cannot be discriminated qua the absence which was for maternity care, nor can she be visited with a penalty having availed the said leave as the same cannot be treated as disqualification. 9. In view whereof, we are unable to endorse the view taken by learned Single Judge and hold that the termination/non-continuation of service of the petitioner as contractual Assistant Warden on her remaining absent for 10 days from 16-3-2016 to attend maternity care is bad and contrary to term of contract and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Female Workers (Muster Roll) (supra). Consequently, order dated 6-12-2016 and the order passed in Writ Petition No. 183/2017 is set aside. Respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service and pay the arrears for the period she is kept out of service and extend the contract as was extended in the past. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of State of Madhya Pradesh who shall ensure that a women employee engaged on contract in the State of M.P. in any Government/Semi-Government/Public Corporations/Local Bodies/Statutory Authorities constituted by virtue of Statute are not deprived of the maternity leave merely because they are appointed on contract. 11. Appeal is disposed of finally in above terms. There shall be no costs.