Q: My father worked in an MNC and had acquired several immovable properties from his earnings. Some years ago, my father died leaving a will, which provides for all his immovable properties to be given to me (his only son) but subject to the life interest of my mother, who has been given the right to enjoy all the properties and the income thereof during her lifetime. We have recently got a lucrative offer in respect of one of the properties but the intending purchaser feels it’s not possible to purchase the property in view of the pending life interest. My mother is willing to allow me to sell the property. Can she transfer her life interest in my favour?
M. Barik
A: Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, prohibits the transfer of an interest in property “restricted in its enjoyment to the owner personally”. Thus, the question of your mother “transferring” her life interest to you or anybody else doesn’t arise. However, if you and your mother are agreeable, the simplest way to go about this is for your mother to execute a surrender deed, whereby she relinquishes the life interest bequeathed to her under the will. There is a subtle legal distinction between surrendering a right and transferring it. Surrender does not amount to a transfer of property; it is merely the effacement of her right as a life interest holder. Your right to become the sole owner is derived from the will and not from the deed of surrender. By doing this, your mother surrenders her interest in the property and steps out of the picture, thereby accelerating your right to the same. If such a deed is executed, there shouldn’t be any impediments to selling the property.
Q:I am a woman and I’m employed in a government department. Recently, my department was closed down and I was absorbed into another department. However, my pay scale for the new post is not at par with that of the other employees in the same post in this new department, even though I am doing the same work as the others, who are all men. Can I take any legal steps against my employer under the principle of equal pay for equal work?
Name Withheld
A: The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” postulates that persons doing identical work under the same employer cannot be treated differently in relation to their pay. This principle is included in Article 39 of our Constitution as a directive principle. Our courts, by progressive interpretations, now recognise it as a doctrine of substance having the character of an enforceable constitutional right. Also, the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, enacts the principle of equality in pay and prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender.
Thus, in cases of discrimination, one can always invoke this principle but it does not mean that you will automatically be successful. The result would depend on the facts of each case. The onus would be on you to show that you and your colleagues are “equally placed”, i.e. the skill, effort and responsibility for the job are equal. It is then up to the employer to justify the reasons for disparity. Merely having identical designations doesn’t suffice; the concerned employees may have different educational qualifications or different levels of experience and expertise. Unfortunately, without a detailed analysis of the nature of the jobs, it’s not possible to judge the merit of the stand your employer may adopt in its defence. However, if you are satisfied that there is discrimination, you have a right to challenge the actions of your employer before the appropriate Central or State Administrative Tribunal and pray for an order for reconsideration of your pay scale.
Send your letters to Inlaw at The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.