The Calcutta High Court: – Ruled that it is “sexist” to distinguish between a married and unmarried daughter in compassionate employment.
Title: – Dipali Mitra & Ors. V Coal India Limited & Ors.
Case No.: – WPA 14349/2018
Decided on: 17/10/2023.
Coram: The Hon’ble Justice Shekhar B. Saraf
Introduction: –
The Calcutta High Court has determined that the National Coal Wages Agreement-VI’s Clause 9.3.3, which distinguishes between “married” and “unmarried” daughters for the purposes of compassionate appointment, is extra vires and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. A single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that the primary requirement for consideration of an application seeking compassionate appointment is to show dependency upon the deceased employee and financial exigency. The bench dismissed the petitioners’ plea for compassionate appointment, noting that the petitioners’ primary reasons for seeking the same was dependency on the deceased employee and financial exigency. It was assumed that a daughter’s marriage status made her less dependent on her mother or father and more on her husband, which is “misogynist”.
The Government was asked by the Court to investigate “archaic laws/policies” that uphold the sexist “natural” order of things and revise them in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution’s equal gender principles.
Brief Facts: –
The current writ petition was filed by the petitioners, who were related to the late Shibdas Mitra, an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited, Kolkate (ECL), requesting a compassionate appointment in favor of a son-in-law or married daughter under Clause 9.3.3 of the National Coul Wages Agreement-VI (NCWA-VI).
Petitioner no. 1’s wife had requested a compassionate appointment for her son-in-law, petitioner no. 2, a.k.a. a “indirect dependant,” on the grounds that the family’s only source of income was the dead employee and that their son, a direct dependant, was living in Sweden. ECL denied the son-in-law’s request for a compassionate appointment, citing the existence of the dead employee’s son as a direct descendant. However, the married daughter of the deceased employee was not taken into consideration.
Petitioner No. 1 then submitted her own application for compassionate appointment, but it was denied because the 45-year-old age requirement for hiring a female dependent had been exceeded. Petitioner no. 1 then requested a compassionate appointment on behalf of her daughter, who is married.
Outraged by this, the petitioners went to the High Court, which was resolved by ordering the respondents to issue a reasoned order supporting or opposing the petitioners. This was done by issuing an order that denied the married daughter of the deceased compassionate employment.
Petitioners filed an appeal against the contested order with the ECL; however, they received no answer. Consequently, they filed an application under Article 226 with the High Court.
Judgement: –
The Court addressed the Petitioner no. 2’s argument that the compassionate appointment was an exception “carved out against the general rule of merit-based recruitment,” not a vested or inherited entitlement. Regarding the question of whether the NCWA’s distinction between married and unmarried daughters is beyond the scope of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, the Court determined that there was no applicable reasonable classification.
In the end, the Court decided that the petitioner’s writ petition should be denied because they had not come before the Court in a clean manner and because the married daughter was living with her husband and had never shown that she was dependent on the deceased employee, even though the son-in-law was earning a living and supporting himself. The petitioners’ submission of incorrect ages and fake affidavits, together with their request for a compassionate appointment for their married daughter just four years after the deceased’s death, were discovered by the court. The Bench also expressed its opinion and provided greater insight into the “arbitrary distinction” between married and single daughters in an afterword.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By: Sushant Kumar Sharma.