Well, an important judgement
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, that I wanted to share earlier, got
lost in the mix somewhere.
The Haryana
Government (and many others States too, it is learnt) had in effect a policy
which discriminated between sons and daughters of ex-servicemen. The said
policy provided that for the purposes of employment, married sons not having an
independent source of income would be considered dependants for the purpose of
issuance of a dependant certificate while married daughters would not be
considered such even if not having any income. This had ostensibly been done by
the Haryana Govt on the pretext that while a married son could be dependent on
his father, a married daughter would not be since she would be dependent on her
husband.
Not finding the
above distinction reasonable and holding it to be unconstitutional, the Punjab
& Haryana High Court has struck down the said clause and it has been held
that both married sons and daughters, if not having independent means of
livelihood, would be considered eligible for the issuance of the dependant
certificate.
Many other strange
stipulations of the Defence Services Welfare wing and the Sainik Board of the
State of Haryana have in the past faced flak from the High Court.
5 comments:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for this wonderful news. Let us hope that all the states pass such judgements.
Sgt.S.kanthiah , Exwel trust.
such arbitrary orders are made by various departments and the citizen is forced to solve the problem by running pillar to post at high expences. its not also possible to go to court for each and every body against each such arbitrary orders. navdeep sir, please advise the action we could take against the persons causing injury, atleast after the judgement, so that other babus do not make trouble for the public.
Now that there are provisions for family pension for daughter ( if her total income is less than 3500pm and they are unmarried / married but divorced / widowed /separated etc).....there should be no reasons for any state to have gender discriminating orders at all.
There are many gender discriminating provisions in IPC/Cr P C / DSR etc
which need to be revised.
JUDICIOUS IMPLEMENTATION AND PRACTICE
OF SUCH PRIVILEGES IS MOST IMPORTANT.BEWARE OF MISUSE/ABUSE OF THE CLAUSES OR ELSE WE ARE TAKING A EASY BAIT TO TARNISH THE IMAGE OF INDIAN ARMED FORCES. UNFORTUNATELY THE TOP HEAVY CADRES HAVE SET A VERY WRONG PRECEDENCE.RANK AND FILE OF THE PRESENT GENERATION ARE NO MORE SAVDHAN AND VISHRAM THEY ARE WELL AWARE ABOUT THE USE AND ABUSE CLAUSES.LETS HOPE FOR THE BEST
a news in 06 feb edition of delhi ToI.
Proposal to replace DGCA to Civil Aviation Authority. Salient features of proposal:-
1. Retirement age of chairperson: 65 years.
2. Qualification: Secy of GoI or equivalent.
3. Educational qualification of Chairperson: Vague.
4. Board Composition: Chairperson, DG Civil Aviation, 12 additional members.
5. Qualiications of members. Vague. No specific place for pilots and other Flight Safety experts.
6. Powers of Board. Emergency powers to compulsorily acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for a “public purpose”.
Buzz: The chairperson post is being earmarked for Current Civil Aviation Secy as A post retirement job.
Complete details at following url:-
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=CAP/2012/02/06&PageLabel=9&EntityId=Ar00900&ViewMode=HTML
Post a Comment