The Bombay High Court has upheld MIDC or Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation’s decision to not employ a woman in place of her deceased father.
Contents
Background
The petitioner or the woman in the case had approached the court after MIDC turned down her application in February 2019 on compassionate grounds.
Her father died before retirement in October 2014.
He had a first daughter, then twin daughters (counted as one child) and a son.
The man’s wife herself had applied for compassionate appointment but was rejected due to her being overaged.
Application Rejected
The petitioner said that since she was one of a pair of twins, both of them are to be treated as one.
This would make her eligible for the appointment as the second child of her parents.
MIDC rejected her appointment due to a violation of the two-child rule.
It said that it had no issue in accepting the woman as the second child as one of the twins.
Failure To Mention Sibling
However, she had a younger brother which she didn’t disclose when she applied for the appointment in December 2015.
As a result, her application was rejected.
The authorities had conducted an enquiry which confirmed the existence of the son.
The woman said that although the child was born to her parents, he was given in adoption to a relative.
MIDC Not Guilty
The MIDC acted in accordance with the Government Resolution (GR) issued in March 28, 2001, which states that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed by a dependent of an employee dying-in-harness (before retirement) if they have more than 2 children.
The court observed that an aspirant cannot be allowed to seek government jobs by deceit.
It said that the employer’s decision was “neither unreasonable nor violates any right of an employee.”
The HC held that even if the child was given up for adoption, a request for a job on compassionate grounds cannot be considered if the employee had more than two children.
Cannot Evade Rules By Deceit
The bench explained that the objective of the government rule is to make sure that government employees do not have more than two children.
If they have a third child, the employee will no longer be entitled to certain benefits, which include appointment on compassionate grounds.
The bench said that the policy cannot be evaded by using loopholes such as adoption and anyone using deceitful means to gain public employment must be sternly dealt with.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.