Case Law Details
Chhattisgarh High Court held that Denial of benefit of rehabilitation, which includes employment, to a married daughter of affected family is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
Relevant Extract of the Judgment
34. Thus, from the aforesaid cases it is quite vivid that marriage is a social circumstance and basic civil right of man and woman, and marriage by itself is not a disqualification. A daughter remains a daughter after her marriage and does not cease to be a daughter of her father or mother. Thus, denial of employment, included in the rehabilitation, to married daughter of an affected family (land oustee) is gender-biased and unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India as well as Article 21, as rehabilitation of a land oustee is logical corollary of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
35. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and consequently, clause 2.1 (c) of the R&R Policy regarding employment being violative and discriminatory to the extent of excluding married daughter from consideration for employment, is hereby declared void and inoperative. The impugned order dated 22-11-2012 (Annexure P-5) is hereby quashed. Clause 2.1 (c) of the Chhattisgarh State Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 be read in the manner to include the married daughter as one of the eligibles subject to fulfillment of other conditions. As a consequence, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for being appointed afresh in accordance with law keeping in view that her father’s land was acquired way back in the year 2007 and her application was rejected on 22-11-2012, preferably within a period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to cost(s).
