Back
INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
State of Tripura – Appellant
Versus
Debashri Chakraborty – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. exclusion of married daughters from die-in-harness scheme (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. challenging the rejection of debashri's application (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. constitutional analysis of the notifications (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 19) |
| 4. judicial consensus on discrimination against married daughters (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final judgment against exclusion policy (Para 17 , 18 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - Though the facts differ from case to case, all these writ appeals involve similar question pertaining to exclusion of married daughters from the die-in-harness scheme of the State Government. Therefore, they have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we shall refer to the facts arising from WA No. 80 of 2020 (The State of Tripura & Ors. v. Smt. Debashri Chakraborty) which is treated as a lead matter.
2. The facts are as under:
Smt. Anita Chakraborty, mother of respondent Debashri Chakraborty was a Group-D staff in the office of the Superintendent of Police (Procurement) under the Department of Home, Government of Tripura. She got the job on compassionate ground since her husband Shekhar Chakraborty died while in service
The exclusion of married daughters from the die-in-harness scheme is unconstitutional as it violates the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
The exclusion of married daughters from the definition of 'dependent' in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.
Marriage does not bring about a severance of relationship between a father and mother and their son or between parents and their daughter. Marriage cannot be regarded as a justifiable ground to defin....
Point of law: undisputedly the petitioner is the elder daughter of the deceased and she along with her husband is staying at the place of the deceased even after her marriage. In the society, there a....
Married daughters are entitled to compassionate appointment on par with sons, as marital status does not negate their familial ties or dependency.
Exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, affirming that marriage does not sever familial ties for employment eligibility.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discriminatory nature of excluding married daughters from consideration for compassionate appointment, violating Articles 14 & 15 of the Consti....
Exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment violates constitutional rights to equality and non-discrimination; eligibility should be based on dependency, not marital status.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
