MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
regular-article-logo Tuesday, 16 April 2024

Termination of woman's job due to marriage is coarse case of gender discrimination: Supreme Court

The apex court made the strong observation in a case where former lieutenant Selina John was released from her job in the Military Nursing Service on account of her marriage

PTI New Delhi Published 21.02.24, 07:46 PM
Supreme Court

Supreme Court File picture

Terminating the services of a woman on account of marriage under a service rule is a “coarse case" of gender discrimination and inequality, and acceptance of such patriarchal norms undermine human dignity, the Supreme Court has said.

The apex court made the strong observation in a case where former lieutenant Selina John was released from her job in the Military Nursing Service on account of her marriage.

ADVERTISEMENT

The top court directed the Centre to pay a compensation of Rs 60 lakh to John.

“We are unable to accept any submission that the respondent – Ex. Lt. Selina John, who was a Permanent Commissioned Officer in the Military Nursing Service, could have been released/discharged on the ground that she had got married.

“This rule, it is accepted, was applicable to only women nursing officers. 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. Acceptance of such patriarchal rule undermines human dignity, right to non-discrimination and fair treatment,” a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said.

The order came on the appeal by the central government against an order of the Lucknow regional bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal declaring John’s release from service as wrong and illegal. The bench said the tribunal’s order did not require any interference.

It noted that her service was terminated according to Army Instruction no. 61 of 1997, titled ‘Terms and Conditions of Service for the Grant of Permanent Commissions in the Military Nursing Service’ which was withdrawn in August 1995.

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we direct the appellant (Union of India) to pay compensation of Rs sixty lakh to the respondent within eight weeks,” the apex court said.

It, however, modified the tribunal’s order directing John’s reinstatement along with back wages and other benefits, saying the compensation would be the “full and final settlement” of all claims made by the ex-officer.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT