close_game
close_game

Termination from job because a woman got married is coarse case of inequality: Supreme Court

ByAbraham Thomas, New Delhi
Feb 21, 2024 07:46 AM IST

Terminating the employment of a woman on the ground that she has got married is a “coarse case of gender discrimination and inequality”, the Supreme Court remarked recently.

Terminating the employment of a woman on the ground that she has got married is a “coarse case of gender discrimination and inequality”, the Supreme Court remarked recently, as it directed the Centre to pay a compensation of 60 lakh to a former military nurse who was removed from service under a now-defunct Army order that provided marriage as a ground for such action.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Centre’s petition. (AFP)
The Supreme Court dismissed the Centre’s petition. (AFP)

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta’s directive on February 14 came while hearing a case in which a permanent commissioned officer former Lt Selina John of military nursing service (MNS) was removed from service by the army in August 1988. The release order said her job was terminated on the grounds that she got married in April that year and she had obtained a low grade in the annual confidential report (ACR).

The termination order was passed under a 1977 Army instruction titled “Terms and conditions of service for the grant of permanent commissions in the Military Nursing Service”, which was later withdrawn in 1995.

In March 2016, John’s release order was set aside by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Lucknow, which directed her reinstatement with back wages. In August that year, the Centre challenged the appeal in the top court.

Dismissing the Centre’s appeal, the bench said: “We are unable to accept any submission that the respondent – Ex. Lt. Selina John – could have been released/discharged on the ground that she had got married. Such rule was ex-facie manifestly arbitrary, as terminating employment because the woman has got married is a coarse case of gender discrimination and inequality.”

It added: “Acceptance of such patriarchal rule undermines human dignity, right to non-discrimination and fair treatment.”

The order also cited past judgments of the top court to stress that no law or regulation can permit gender bias, and rules considering marriage of women employees and their domestic involvement as a ground for disentitlement would be unconstitutional.

Taking into consideration that John had since worked for a brief time as a nurse with a private organisation, the top court modified the AFT order and granted full and final settlement of her claims by ordering the Centre to compensate her with a sum of 60 lakh.

“We direct the appellants (Union government/Army) to pay compensation of 60 lakh to the respondent within a period of eight weeks,” the bench said.

In case the payment is not made within the said period, an interest of 12% per annum will be charged on the amount from the date of the order till the date of payment, it added.

The rule included in the 1977 army provided that “Termination of appointment in MNS” could be done on three grounds – on the opinion of the medical board to be unfit for service, on getting married, and for misconduct.

While challenging her termination before the AFT, John submitted that she was not given a hearing or even a warning about her low grading of ACR. She alleged that the order was the outcome of personal bias against her as the principal matron under whom she worked had opposed her marriage with an army officer.

Get Current Updates on...
See more
Get Current Updates on India News, Weather Today along with Latest News and Top Headlines from India.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Tuesday, November 05, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On
// // //