Exclusion of dependents based on gender from employment schemes is unconstitutional, violating fundamental rights to equal opportunity.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Petitioner, who is daughter of a deceased arrack worker, seeks to quash Ext.P11 and to declare that Exts.P4 and P5 to the extent it excluded dependant daughters of deceased arrack workers for providing employment assistance in the 25% of the daily wage employment vacancies arising in the 3^rd respondent is in violation of ArticleS.14 , 15, 16(1), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India .

2. The petitioner states that her father was working as Salesman in AS No.52 of Perumbavoor Excise Range. He was registered with the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. He lost his employment due to ban of arrack in the State from 01.04.1996. The arrack workers launched agitation demanding rehabilitation. The Government thereupon issued Government Order dated 20.02.2002. As per the Government Order, 25% of all daily wage employment vacancies in the 3^rd respondent-Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Limited in future shall stand reserved to be filled up by displaced arrack workers who were members of the Welfare Fund and whose services were terminated due to the ban of arrack. However, due to lack of medical care, the petitioner's father passed away on 25.05.2004.

3. The Government then issued Ext.P4 Government Order dated 07.08.2004 as per which 25% of all daily wage employment vacancies likely to arise in the 3^rd respondent were directed to be earmarked for the dependant sons of arrack workers who had perished consequent to the loss of employment due to the ban on arrack. It was stipulated that the dependant sons of deceased arrack workers shall not have completed 30 years of age, for availing the benefit of Ext.P4.

4. The 6^th respondent-Chief Welfare Fund Inspector prepared a list of 266 dependant sons of arrack workers. They were granted appointment. But, dependant daughters were excluded from the list. Though the petitioner approached the 4^th respondent on several occasions seeking daily wage employment as the dependant daughter of arrack worker, employment was denied to her. The petitioner states that from the year 2007 onwards, the 3^rd respondent had given appointments to women under the Dying-in-harness Scheme.

5. The petitioner states that the right of equality and equal opportunity under ArticleS.14 and 16 being a fundamental right, violation of the same cannot be ignored on the ground of delay and laches. Denial of employment to the petitioner is in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner and is an instance of discrimination based on sex.

6. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.25945/2024 and this Court directed the Government to consider Ext.P8 representation. The representation now stands dismissed as per Ext.P11 G.O. dated 30.10.2024. The benefit of employment has been denied to the petitioner in Ext.P11. Under the circumstances, this Court should declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for employment assistance towards the 25% daily wage vacancies arising under the 3^rd respondent, urged the petitioner.

7. The 2^nd respondent resisted the writ petition.

The 2^nd respondent submitted that as part of the implementation of arrack prohibition order in 1996. the Government decided to implement a one-time employment scheme to provide jobs to the dependant sons of the deceased workers who lost their employment. Based on this, the Chief Welfare Fund Inspector of the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board invited applications for eligible candidates and submitted a list of 266 individuals to the Government for approval. The Government approved this list and