Violation of Article 14 By Scheme of Married daughters

The thought process of the Compassionate appointment is to give placement or appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependant family member of a Government worker who is on a demise bed or retired because of clinical reasons, hence leaving his family in poverty and without any maintenance and means of livelihood. The motive for the scheme was to give prompt alleviation to the family of the expired Government worker, who may endure without such a consolation.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution states that” The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India” Equality before the law means that the state won’t make laws, rules, or regulations which will be discriminatory between two people. Article 14 is one of the most important fundamental right in Indian constitution and it is absolute.

In the case of State of MP & Ors. v. Jyoti Sharma

The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has communicated its concurrence with the position taken by a Full Bench of the High Court in Indore, vis-à-vis deliberation of wedded daughter from compassionate appointment.

A Division Bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and Anand Pathak dismissed State’s allure against a Single Bench order that permitted the Petitioner’s challenge to dismissal of her case for compassionate appointment exclusively on the ground of her conjugal status.

The Petitioner turned out to be a wedded daughter of the expired Government worker, who passed away on the post of ASI (M). Dependency of a single bench happened to be on Meenakshi Dubey v. MP Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd to permit her solicitation for a Compassionate appointment.

In the aforesaid case, a Full Bench at Indore had said that the policy of the government prohibiting deliberation of a wedded women from the compassionate appointment is unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

It was observed by the bench of judges comprised of Sujoy Paul, JP Gupta, and Nandita Dubey that such an approach that deprives wedded women of the right of contemplation for compassionate appointment violates equality.

In the said case, the Full Bench alluded to different global law standards, arrangements and treaties that stop gender injustice. It additionally alluded to the view picked by the Supreme Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defense v. Babita Puniya and Ors.

In this case, the Division Bench saw that the Meenakshi Dubey case (supra) has not been attacked by the State in any higher gathering. In this manner, the Court wouldn’t meddle with the Single Bench order.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: