Sabareesh Pillay | School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus | 21st August 2020
Meenakshi Dubey Vs M.P Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd
FACTS:
In this case, the petitioner Meenakshi Dubey filed a claim for compassionate appointment in the company her deceased father was an employee of. Meenakshi Dubey is the daughter of the deceased employee. The company rejected her claim as she was married and a married woman was not eligible for compassionate appointment according to the policies of the respondent company. Earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the court but it was decided that a married woman cannot be considered for compassionate appointment in view with the policies of the company and the writ petition was dismissed. Disagreeing with the judgement the petitioner has now submitted a writ appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the inclusion of married daughter in the policy of compassionate appointment violation of article 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the Indian Constitution.
PETITONER CONTENTION:
Petitioner contended that according to the policies of the company the married daughter of the deceased father is not eligible for compassionate appointment and it discriminates on the basis of gender. The petitioner said that this clause is unreasonable and violates several articles under the Constitution of India and thus, this clause of the policy should be removed immediately and a daughter should also be considered for compassionate appointment regardless of if she is married or unmarried.
RESPONDENT CONTENTION:
The respondent contended that the government should make time to check upon the validity of the case and they should decide on this matter later as it is not of the utmost importance. Further, the respondent said that if changes are made by the government then that can be examined dutifully by this bench and if they feel necessary they can make changes to the same.
BENCH OBSERVATION:
The bench comprising of Justice J.P Gupta, Justice Sujay Paul, and Justice Nandita Dubey observed. Women should not be excluded on basis of sex for employment, and only can be excluded if there are major reasons to do so. The right to get compassionate appointment should be on the basis of the individual and not on the basis of her marital status because a daughter remains the part of a family even after marriage, she does not become a part of another family at the behest of not being a member of her own family and she should not be treated otherwise. The court said that this is an important matter and that is the reason it has been referred to a larger bench as they have to be answerable to the state government and the government has to make changes and amends to the policy. The bench said- “Article 14 provides for classification which is intelligible and reasonable, and the present policy is an artificial classification which divides a homogenous class, by creating a class within a class”.
JUDGEMENT:
The court gave the judgement that it knows that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rules of a company. The court said-“As per the policy of compassionate appointment, if there is no male child present the state has considered the appointment of married daughters. After the death, it is up to the wife to determine who will be best and suitable for compassionate appointment whether her/his son or daughter”. Thus, the court accepted that the arguments of the petitioner are right and under article 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the Constitution of India the policy that deprives the married daughter to be eligible for compassionate appointment is unconstitutional.
Leave a Reply