Terminating the employment of a woman on the ground that she has got married is a “coarse case of gender discrimination & 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.
A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna & 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 & she had obtained a low grade in the annual confidential report (ACR).
The termination order was passed under a 1977 Army instruction titled “Terms & conditions of service for the grant of permanent commissions in the Military Nursing Service”, which was later withdrawn in 1995.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 & inequality.”
It added: “Acceptance of such patriarchal rule undermines human dignity, right to non-discrimination & fair treatment.”
The order also cited past judgments of the top court to stress that no law or regulation can permit gender bias, & rules considering marriage of women employees & 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 & granted full & 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, & 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.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
