Karnataka High Court
R. Jayamma vs Karnataka Electricity Board And Anr. on 29 July, 1992
Equivalent citations: ILR1992KAR3416, 1992(3)KARLJ570, (1993)ILLJ587KANT
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is the daughter of a deceased employee of the Karnataka Electricity Board, which is the first respondent in this writ petition. Her mother who was working as a Sanitary Worker with the respondents died on March 7, 1989, while in service.
2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is married but since her husband has been mentally deranged, she was depending upon her mother for her livelihood. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste as is evidenced by the certificate, a copy of which is marked as Annexure-C. The petitioner has three children. As stated above, the husband of the petitioner who was working as a coolie, in course of time became mentally deranged and left the house and his whereabouts are not known for the last eight to nine years. It is, in these circumstances, the petitioner sought employment on compassionate ground. On her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, the second respondent has issued an endorsement dated March 21, 1991, a copy of which is marked as Annexure-A. It reads as hereunder :
"As per SEE, Mysore, Letter No. DCA/AAO/AG-8/18569 dated March 12, 1991, and Secretary, K.E.B. Bangalore, Letter No. K.E.B./35/721/90-91. dated June 25, 1990, only the widows/son/unmarried daughter/near relative of deceased Board employee who dies while in service, are eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds in K.E.B."
It is evident from the endorsement that her application for application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected because she is a married daughter of a deceased employee and therefore, not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.
3. Sr. M. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, sought to justify the rejection of the application of the petitioner contending that the guidelines formulated by the Karnataka Electricity Board for giving appointment on compassionate ground clearly specifies the dependent relatives who are eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. A copy of the said guideline is marked as Annexure-E. Clause 2 of the said guidelines provides for appointment on compassionate ground and enumerates the persons who are eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and the same is extracted hereunder :
Since a married daughter is not included in clause 2 which is reproduced above, Sri. M. Subba Rao contended that a married daughter is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. According to the learned counsel, the reason for excluding a married daughter to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground is that when a girl gets married she leaves the parental home and joins her husband and, therefore, giving her appointment will be of no assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This, according to the learned counsel, is the main reason for excluding a married daughter from consideration for giving appointment on compassionate ground.
4. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that this concept that a married daughter leaves the parental home and joins the family of the husband, to such an extent that she would completely tear herself off from the family of her birth and would be of no help to the parental home even in times of difficulty, is a hangover from the past abhorrent to the present times, and is contrary to the rights guaranteed to women in our Constitution. He relied on two decisions in Radha Charan v. State of Orissa and C. B. Nuthamma v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 1868. In C. B. Nuthamma v. Union of India (supra) the Supreme Court at paragraph 6, page 1870, has observed as follows :
"6. At the first blush this rule is in defiance or Article 16. If a married man has a right, a married woman, other things being equal, stands on no worse footing. This misogynous posture is a hangover of the masculine culture of manacling the weaker sex forgetting how our struggle of national freedom was also a battle against woman's thraldom. Freedom is individual, so is Justice. That our founding faith enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 should have been tragically ignored vis-a-vis half of India's humanity, viz., our women, is a sad reflection on the distance between Constitution in the book and Law in action. And if the Executive as the surrogate of Parliament, makes rules in the teeth of Part III, especially when high political office, even diplomatic assignment has been filled by woman, the inference of die-hard allergy to gender parity is inevitable."
Similary, at paragraph 14 in Radha Charan v. State of Orissa, (supra) the Court has observed as follows :
"14. The above reasoning, however, overlooks the aspect that in substance the disqualification of married women from being eligible for appointment amounts, in substance, to a disqualification on the ground of sex only and as such is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Marriage does not operate as a disqualification for appointment as a District Judge in the case of men, whereas in the case of married women, by Rule 6(2) they are being excluded from appointment. Such a disqualification being thus based on sex is unconstitutional. That apart, the restriction disqualifying a married woman from appointment as a District Judge is also unreasonable and discriminatory. It is significant that under Article 217, there is no bar to a married woman from being eligible to be appointed as a High Court Judge if she is otherwise qualified; appointment to the post of a High Court Judge involves the discharge of more onerous duties than those of a District Judge. In this view of the matter, the impugned Rule 6(2) in so far as it operates as a disqualification in the case of married woman only, as against married man, must be held to be discriminatory and must be struck down."
5. Article 14 of our Constitution assures to all citizens equality before the law and legal protection of the law. Article 15 expressly prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employments.
6. Though women have equal right in law, tradition and social customs hinder Indian women in enjoying equal rights with men. With the change in family structure and life styles and the social norms, nothing is so detrimental to society as a blind adherence to outworn forms and obsolete social customs which survive because of inertia.
7. This discrimination, in refusing compassionate appointment on the only ground that the woman is married is violative of constitutional guarantees. It is out of keeping with the trend of times when men and women compete on equal terms in all areas. The Electricity Board would do well revise its guidelines and remove such anachronisms.
8. In the result, this petition succeeds and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground ignoring the fact that she is a married woman. Time for compliance-three months hereof.
9. Writ petition allowed.