A Division Bench of the Hyderabad High Court, comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and J. Uma Devi, on Thursday set aside a scheme in Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) providing employment on compassionate grounds to dependent persons of medically infirm employees by allowing the latter to take voluntary retirement.
The Bench was allowing a case filed by an unemployed youth of Godavarikhani, K. Satish Kumar, who challenged a circular issued by the SCCL on December 12, 2016, enabling its employees covered by the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) to retire from services of the company in consideration of employment to male dependants as Badli workers who work underground.
The Bench observed that the scheme was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as it was not intended for the benefit of medically invalidated employees but intended to benefit employees found to be medically unfit and who can continue in service up to the normal date of retirement.
Gender discrimination
The scheme itself was a device to perpetuate succession by easing out employees just two years prior to their retirement so that they could pass on the baton to their chosen dependants. It also discriminated between male and female dependants on the plea that females could not perform the task required of a Badli worker, thereby violating the commitment of the country to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women .
The scheme discriminated between persons who were employed singly in the organisation and those whose spouses were also working along with them.
It also discriminated against physically disabled dependants on the ground that they might not be able to perform the job that was offered under the scheme. It kept out of its purview adopted sons without keeping in mind the societal obligations under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The Bench also said any scheme for compassionate appointment on the ground of medical invalidation should contain adequate safeguards to ensure that mere medical unfitness to continue in service was not treated as medical invalidation. Such appointments might be warranted only in cases where the government servants ceased totally to be employable and became a burden on their families.
Any scheme should ensure that employees on the verge of retirement did not take advantage of schemes for the purpose of creating employment by succession. It is very clear that the scheme sought to confer benefits upon persons who claimed to be medically unfit but who could serve up to 58 years of age. They paved way for their wards to get appointment, the Bench pointed out.
