As per the source published in TOI on 19th of December, 2011, Punjab and Haryana high court has struck down a 'gender-biased' policy of the Haryana government which had excluded married daughters of ex-servicemen from getting dependent certificates.
"A girl is as good a child of her father as the married son. Such policies of the state would offend right of equality and amounts to discriminatory treatment to a married daughter, who is without an independent source of livelihood, by depriving her of a dependent certificate to secure a job," the HC held.
As per the existing policy, only a married dependent son of ex-serviceman, who does not have independent source of livelihood, was eligible for dependent certificate but a married daughter was not.
Rejecting the Haryana government's argument that married daughter is dependent on her husband, the bench held, "In the case of dependent married son, no condition has been imposed that his wife must not be earning."
Directing the state to amend the said policy dated October 11, 2001, the bench also observed that even Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has been amended and now the daughter of a coparcener have the same rights and liabilities in the coparcenery property as she would have had she been a son.
Following the order, now married daughter of ex-servicemen who do not have independent source of livelihood will also be eligible for dependent certificate from the Rajya Sainik Boards to get a government job.
The order was passed by a division bench of the HC comprising Justice M M Kumar and Justice Rajiv Narain Raina, while hearing a petition filed by a retired Naval personnel, Jai Narain Jakhar.
The petitioner had challenged the order of October 27, 2009 passed by the Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana rejecting his application for issuance of dependent certificate to his married daughter and directions to issue her ex-serviceman dependent certificate.
Contesting the petition, the Haryana government had taken a stand that a married daughter would be dependent on her husband and not on her father, therefore, in the policy a married daughter of the ex-serviceman has not been held entitled to the dependent certificate. Source: TOINews.
"A girl is as good a child of her father as the married son. Such policies of the state would offend right of equality and amounts to discriminatory treatment to a married daughter, who is without an independent source of livelihood, by depriving her of a dependent certificate to secure a job," the HC held.
As per the existing policy, only a married dependent son of ex-serviceman, who does not have independent source of livelihood, was eligible for dependent certificate but a married daughter was not.
Rejecting the Haryana government's argument that married daughter is dependent on her husband, the bench held, "In the case of dependent married son, no condition has been imposed that his wife must not be earning."
Directing the state to amend the said policy dated October 11, 2001, the bench also observed that even Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has been amended and now the daughter of a coparcener have the same rights and liabilities in the coparcenery property as she would have had she been a son.
Following the order, now married daughter of ex-servicemen who do not have independent source of livelihood will also be eligible for dependent certificate from the Rajya Sainik Boards to get a government job.
The order was passed by a division bench of the HC comprising Justice M M Kumar and Justice Rajiv Narain Raina, while hearing a petition filed by a retired Naval personnel, Jai Narain Jakhar.
The petitioner had challenged the order of October 27, 2009 passed by the Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana rejecting his application for issuance of dependent certificate to his married daughter and directions to issue her ex-serviceman dependent certificate.
Contesting the petition, the Haryana government had taken a stand that a married daughter would be dependent on her husband and not on her father, therefore, in the policy a married daughter of the ex-serviceman has not been held entitled to the dependent certificate. Source: TOINews.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.