Wg.Cdr. A.U. Tayyaba ( Retd) vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2022
The extra-
ordinary constitutional power entrusted under Article 142 has been earlier invoked by
this Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya, Lt. Col.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 80 (0.85 seconds)Documents citing
Secr.,Ministry Of Defence Secretary vs Babita Puniya on 7 July, 2020
Smt. Madhuri Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2024
This recent judgment in Babita Puniya (Supra) is a very important
step to ensure "Gender Justice". In view of catena of judgments
referred hereinabove, it can be safely concluded that Clause 2.2 to
the extent it deprives married woman from right of consideration
for compassionate appointment violates equality clause and cannot
be countenanced. By introducing Clause 2.4, the Government
partially recognised the right of consideration of married daughter
but such consideration was confined to such daughters who have no
brothers. Clause 2.2, as noticed, gives option to the living spouse of
deceased government servant to nominate son or unmarried
daughter. There is no condition imposed while considering a son
relating to marital status. Adjective/condition of "unmarried" is
affixed for the daughter. This condition is without there being any
justification and; therefore, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.
Shipra Tewary vs M/S Coal India Limited on 14 August, 2024
8. Further, denial of employment to the female candidate is against the
provision made in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The Court
further finds that in paragraph 30 of the counter affidavit itself, it is stated
that in exceptional cases where there is no male nominee, the proposal for
female employment was being considered by the Eastern Coalfields Limited
and, as such, on the basis of gender, denying the employment is against the
mandate of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India is the
fountain of the statute and this aspect has been dealt with by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita
Puniya and others (supra).
Preeti Chadhaar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2025
This recent judgment in Babita Puniya(Supra) is a very
important step to ensure "Gender Justice". In view of
catena of judgments referred hereinabove, it can be safely
concluded that Clause 2.2 to the extent it deprives married
woman from right of consideration for compassionate
appointment violates equality clause and cannot be
countenanced. By introducing Clause 2.4, the Government
partially recognised the right of consideration of married
daughter but such consideration was confined to such
daughters who have no brothers. Clause 2.2, as noticed,
gives option to the living spouse of deceased government
servant to nominate son or unmarried daughter. There is no
condition imposed while considering a son relating to
marital status. Adjective/condition of "unmarried" is
affixed for the daughter. This condition is without there
being any justification and; therefore, arbitrary and
discriminatory in nature.
Purushottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 September, 2020
xxx
The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
Ministry of Defence vs. Babita Puniya and Others by
order dated 17th February, 2020 in Civil Appeal Nos.
9367-9369 of 2011 has made direction applicable to a
particular class of Women Army Officers. When certain
Women Officers who have retired after the
pronouncement of judgment but before formulation of
scheme moved Miscellaneous Application No.1497-
1498/2020, then by order dated 03/09/2020, the said
application was dismissed on the ground that it would
amount to a review."
Lalpati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2020
xxx
The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
Ministry of Defence vs. Babita Puniya and Others by
order dated 17th February, 2020 in Civil Appeal Nos.
9367-9369 of 2011 has made direction applicable to a
particular class of Women Army Officers.
Savitri Kumari vs The Chairman/Managing Director on 19 November, 2020
67. The policy decision of the Union Government is a
recognition of the right of women officers to equality of
opportunity. One facet of that right is the principle of
nondiscrimination on the ground of sex which is embodied
in Article 15(1) of the Constitution. The second facet of the
right is equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of
public employment under Article 16(1)
This recent judgment in Babita Puniya(Supra) is a very
important step to ensure Gender Justice. In view of catena of
judgments referred hereinabove, it can be safely concluded
that Clause 2.2 to the extent it deprives married woman from
right of consideration for compassionate appointment
violates equality clause and cannot be countenanced. By
introducing Clause 2.4, the Government partially recognised
the right of consideration of married daughter but such
consideration was confined to such daughters who have no
brothers. Clause 2.2, as noticed, gives option to the living
spouse of deceased government servant to nominate son or
unmarried daughter. There is no condition imposed while
considering a son relating to marital status.
Nitisha vs Union Of India on 25 March, 2021
94 The above analysis leads to the conclusion that the process by which
WSSCOs, were evaluated for the grant of PC was by a belated application of a
general policy that did not redress the harms of gendered discrimination that
were identified by this Court in Babita Puniya (supra). Additionally, its belated
and formal application causes an effect of indirect discrimination. The petitioners
submitted that Special No. 5 Selection Board appears to have been more a
Board for rejection of candidates, than for selection. Some of the finest women
officers who have served the Indian Army and brought distinction by their
performance and achievements have been excluded by refusing to consider their
achievements on the specious ground that these were after the 5th/10th year of
service. They have been asked to benchmark with the last male counterparts
from the corresponding batches. The benchmarking criterion plainly ignores that
in terms of the MoD Policy Letter dated 15 January 1991 a cut-off of 60 per cent
was prescribed and a cap of 250 officers who would be granted PC annually was
laid down. Competitive merit was required to be assessed only where the number
of eligible officers exceeds the ceiling of 250. As the figures which have been
disclosed by the Union of India indicate, for the period from 1994-2010, there
were years when the ceiling of 250 officers had not been reached. Then there are
113
PART G
other years where the total number of male officers granted PC was well in
excess of 250. For years during which the ceiling of 250 had not been reached,
there is absolutely no justification to exclude the WSSCOs who had fulfilled the
cut-off grade on the basis of the benchmarking criteria. Moreover, it is evident
that the ceiling of 250 was not regarded as an absolute or rigid criterion as
already indicated in the earlier part of this judgment.
95 The evaluation process which has been followed in the case of the
WSSCOs has clearly ignored that the writing of their ACRs was fundamentally
influenced by the circumstance that at the relevant time an option of PC was not
available for women. Even as late as October 2020, the authorities have
emphasized the need to duly fill in a recommendation on whether or not
WSSCOs should be granted PC. The manner of allocating 20 marks or 5 marks
as the case may be, in the subjective assessment has been found to be flawed
since male counterparts of the WSSCOs were assessed by an entirely distinct
Special No. 5 Selection Board. To make a comparison in regard to the award of
subjective marks ranging between 5 and 20 by different sets of boards would be
completely unfair and arbitrary. It does not fulfill the avowed purpose of
benchmarking which was to compare like with like.
Gujarat Public Service Commission vs Niketa Babulal Chaudhari on 31 March, 2021
Incidentally and luckily, before we could sign off and
pronounce this Judgment, we came across the Judgment of the
Supreme Court pronounced on 25.3.2021 in WPC No.1109 of 2020
(Nitisha v. Union of India), in which reiterating the concern of the
Supreme Court for gender equality in the case of Secretary,
Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Others dated
17.2.2020, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 469 in which the Supreme
Court directed grant of Permanent Commissions to Women, who
were engaged in Army in Short Service Commissions (SSC) in its
landmark Judgment in which the following epoch making
observations were made by Hon'ble Dr.Justice D. Y.
Chandrachud for the Bench, resounding the Constitutional spirit
of equality without any gender discrimination in the following
terms :
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Jyoti Sharma on 7 April, 2021
This recent judgment in Babita Puniya(Supra) is a very important step
to ensure "Gender Justice". In view of catena of judgments referred
hereinabove, it can be safely concluded that Clause 2.2 to the extent it
deprives married woman from right of consideration for compassionate
appointment violates equality clause and cannot be countenanced. By
introducing Clause 2.4, the Government partially recognised the right of
consideration of married daughter but such consideration was confined
to such daughters who have no brothers. Clause 2.2, as noticed, gives
option to the living spouse of deceased government servant to nominate
son or unmarried daughter. There is no condition imposed while
considering a son relating to marital status. Adjective/condition of
"unmarried" is affixed for the daughter. This condition is without there
being any justification and; therefore, arbitrary and discriminatory in
nature.