JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 by which petitioner's writ petition for setting aside the order dated 06.03.2021, has been dismissed finding no merit. 2. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the learned Single Judge is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition relying upon Rules, 3, 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012 (for brevity 'the Rules, 2012') by recording a finding which is perverse to the record and by not following the binding decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Devshree Bandhe v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited & Others, WPS No.101/2017, decided on 20.02.2017, therefore, order dated 06.03.201 is liable to be set aside and petitioner/appellant herein be granted salary/wages for the maternity period i.e. from 01.02.2020 to 31.07.2020. 3. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 5, would submit that the Rules, 2012 would not be applicable in the present case as the petitioner/appellant herein was appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator on job rate basis on 21.10.2011 and as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order, the petitioner/appellant herein is not entitled for any leave including maternity leave as neither the appellant was working as daily wager employee nor contractual employee nor permanent employee of the Marketing Federation. He further submits that Clause 4 of the terms and conditions of appointment order of the petitioner/appellant herein would show that the petitioner/appellant herein would not be treated as employee of Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation for any purpose, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is strictly in accordance with law and the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records. 5. Undisputedly, respondent No.3 appointed the petitioner/appellant herein on job rate basis by order dated 29.09.2010 and in the appellant's appointment order, it was mentioned that the wages shall be paid on the basis of job done. It was also provided in the order of appointment that the monthly wages would not exceed Rs.6400/- and further that on account of any absence from duty, the proportionate deduction shall be made. It was also provided in the order of appointment that the monthly wages would not exceed Rs.6400/- and further that on account of any absence from duty, the proportionate deduction shall be made. But, thereafter, in terms of the said order of appointment, the petitioner/appellant herein continued on the post of Data Entry Operator giving her services to the Office of District Marketing Officer, Kanker till the petitioner/appellant herein submitted her application for grant of maternity leave on 01.02.2020, on account of her advanced stage of pregnancy, as the due date for delivery was 11.02.2020. However, vide order dated 06.03.2021, the application submitted by the petitioner/appellant herein was rejected on the ground that respondent No.3, Federation, does not have any enabling rule for grant of maternity leave to job rated employees. It is apparent on the record that the petitioner/appellant herein was appointed on 29.09.2010 and since then she was working in the Federation as job rated employee on the post of Data Entry Operator. The nature of job discharged by the petitioner was, therefore, perennial in nature as she continued for almost 10 years in the same establishment and was receiving monthly wages as is evident from the order of appointment and the order of appointment having referred to her appointment as job rated employee is only misnomer and in fact, the petitioner/appellant herein was working as a contractual employee in the said establishment. 6. The State of Chhattisgarh has already framed the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012 and by way of Notification dated 20.09.2018, Rule 13 was substituted wherein the Rule 13 (2) categorically provides that a female contractual employee shall be entitled to grant of maternity leave. This Court in Devshree Bandhe (supra) wherein one of us (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) after detailed consideration of the various constitutional provisions as well as international conventions has held that even the contingency paid employees of an establishment are entitled for maternity leave. 7. This Court in Devshree Bandhe (supra) wherein one of us (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) after detailed consideration of the various constitutional provisions as well as international conventions has held that even the contingency paid employees of an establishment are entitled for maternity leave. 7. This Court in Devshree Bandhe (supra) also took into account the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), AIR 2000 SC 1274 , in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have categorically held that the provisions as contained under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act of 1961') were framed in consonance with the directives principles of the State policy as contained in Articles 39 & 42 of the Constitution of India and it was further held by their Lordships as under :- “24 ….A woman employee, at the time of advanced pregnancy cannot be compelled to undertake hard labour as it would be detrimental to her health and also to the health of the foetus. It is for this reason that it is provided in the Act that she would be entitled to maternity leave for certain periods prior to and after delivery. We have scanned the different provisions of the Act, but we do not find anything contained in the Act which entitles only regular women employees to the benefit of maternity leave and not to those who are engaged on casual basis or on muster roll on daily wage basis.” 8. The principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation Delhi (supra) would show that the provisions of the Act of 1961 was a social legislation meant to benefit the women employees engaged in any establishment under any nomenclature. The nomenclature under which the woman employee engaged in service is immaterial insofar as the applicability of the provisions of the Act, 1961 are concerned. The object of the Act, 1961 is paramount consideration and thus the said benefit of maternity leave cannot be denied on the pretext of technicalities having referred to the nature of appointment. 9. The nomenclature under which the woman employee engaged in service is immaterial insofar as the applicability of the provisions of the Act, 1961 are concerned. The object of the Act, 1961 is paramount consideration and thus the said benefit of maternity leave cannot be denied on the pretext of technicalities having referred to the nature of appointment. 9. Bearing in mind, the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation Delhi (supra) as followed by this Court in the matter of Devshree Bandhe (supra), the issue of maternity leave in our considered opinion, intrinsically attached to the dignity of a woman. The question of maternity leave is, therefore, an essential element of the fundamental right of a woman employee. Respondent No.3, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation being an instrumentality of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is expected to act in a pragmatic and sensitive manner giving respect to the dignity of a pregnant woman who is basically nurturing a life. Respondent No.3 being a State instrumentality cannot be permitted to act in a hyper technical manner shielding behind the nomenclature under which the woman employee is appointed. The petitioner/appellant herein in the instant case was appointed in the year 2010 and continued till 2020 when she basically preferred her application for grant of maternity leave. Though the order of appointment refers her appointment as job rated, but even then the nature of duty and the length of service which the petitioner/appellant herein had put in respondent No.3 Federation, clearly shows that the appointment has all the semblance of being a contractual employee as she continued on the said post for more than 10 years and the petitioner/appellant herein would be entitled for all benefits as are otherwise available to the contract employee and the petitioner/appellant herein would also be entitled to grant of maternity leave under the Act of 1961. Therefore, the order passed by Respondent No.3, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation, dated 06.03.2021 as well as the impugned order dated 25.07.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby set aside. Therefore, the order passed by Respondent No.3, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation, dated 06.03.2021 as well as the impugned order dated 25.07.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge are hereby set aside. Respondent No.3, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation, is directed to grant wages to the petitioner/appellant herein for the maternity leave period, which she is entitled under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Vipnan Sangh Seva Niyam along with 6% interest per annum from the date of rejection till the date of payment. The abovestated payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 10. The instant writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to cost(s).