Exclusion Of Female Dependents From Consideration For Compassionate Appointment Violative Of Article 14:...
Background: Compassionate Appointment
Compassionate appointment is a relief measure granted by the government to the family members of a deceased government employee. It is aimed to provide immediate financial assistance and job security to the dependent family members, helping them sustain themselves after the loss of the breadwinner.
The key dependents generally considered are the spouse, children, and sometimes dependent parents. However, historically, in some cases, female dependents (like widows or daughters) were excluded from such consideration.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
Article 14 guarantees Equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. It ensures:
No person shall be denied equality before the law.
No person shall be discriminated against by arbitrary or unreasonable classification.
Any classification made by law must be based on an intelligible differentia and must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Issue: Exclusion of Female Dependents and Violation of Article 14
When a policy or government order excludes female dependents from consideration for compassionate appointment, the question arises whether this exclusion constitutes unreasonable discrimination violating Article 14.
Exclusion of female dependents (such as widows or daughters) from compassionate appointments is based on gender or sex, which is a suspect classification and requires a strong justification.
If the policy or practice is arbitrary or does not have a rational nexus with the objective (which is to support dependents), it will be held violative of Article 14.
Important Case Laws
1. Air India vs. Nergesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335
Facts: The case dealt with discrimination on the basis of sex concerning employment benefits.
Principle: The Supreme Court held that any discrimination based on sex must be scrutinized strictly and only allowed if it is reasonable and justifiable.
Relevance: This case sets the tone that gender-based discrimination, like excluding female dependents, is suspect under Article 14.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Principle: Article 14 is not confined to equality before the law but extends to equal protection of the laws, requiring reasonableness in classification.
Relevance: Any exclusion, such as that of female dependents, must pass the test of reasonableness.
3. UOI & Ors. v. Raghubir Singh, AIR 1989 SC 189
Facts: The case dealt with compassionate appointment of dependents.
Holding: The Court held that the scheme of compassionate appointment must be applied fairly and without unreasonable discrimination. The exclusion of eligible dependents, including females, is arbitrary.
Relevance: Exclusion based on gender or relationship (female dependents) is discriminatory.
4. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, AIR 2006 SC 1986
While this case primarily deals with appointments and recruitment fairness, it emphasizes the importance of equality and non-arbitrariness in public employment policies.
5. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531
The Court held that discrimination on the basis of sex, especially affecting women, violates fundamental rights.
Relevance: Exclusion of female dependents falls under such discrimination.
Reasoning Why Exclusion of Female Dependents Violates Article 14
Unreasonable Classification: Classifying dependents by excluding female members is not an intelligible differentia connected to the purpose of compassionate appointment.
Arbitrariness: Exclusion of widows or daughters is arbitrary because they are as dependent on the deceased employee as male dependents.
Equality: Women have an equal right to livelihood and support, and their exclusion violates the principle of equality.
Social Context: Widows and female dependents often face greater financial insecurity, and denying them relief exacerbates inequality.
Conclusion
Exclusion of female dependents from consideration for compassionate appointment is discriminatory and violative of Article 14. Any policy or practice that does so fails the test of reasonableness and equality and is therefore unconstitutional.
RELATED Blog
0 comments