Live
- Ajith requests fans to drop ‘Kadavuley’ tag, prefers simplicity
- ‘Pushpa 2’ BTS: Rashmika’s transformation as Srivalli
- Sreeleela inaugurates South India Shopping Mall at Ongole
- Nuveksha steals the spotlight
- Rana’s wife Miheeka take social media by storm
- Inter-state burglar arrested
- Traffic diversions for ‘Vision’ meet
- YSRCP stir for MSP today
- Direct flights from Rajahmundry to major cities soon
- Search intensified for Gowtham Reddy as HC dismisses his bail plea
HC strikes down SCCL dependent jobs
Pulling the curtains down on the dependent employment scheme in Singareni, the High Court at Hyderabad on Thursday set aside the “Voluntary Retirement Scheme on Health Reasons”, introduced by the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (SCCL) to fill hundreds of posts with kin of its existing employees.
Hyderabad: Pulling the curtains down on the dependent employment scheme in Singareni, the High Court at Hyderabad on Thursday set aside the “Voluntary Retirement Scheme on Health Reasons”, introduced by the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (SCCL) to fill hundreds of posts with kin of its existing employees.
The court found the scheme unconstitutional and discriminatory. A division bench comprising Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice J Uma Devi delivered a judgment to this effect allowing a Public Interest Litigation petition moved by one unemployed youth from Godavarikhani town, K Satish Kumar challenging the scheme.
The court held that the scheme is violative of fundamental right of equality and equal opportunities guaranteed under the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The bench expressed its disapproval at the scheme as it perpetuates succession by enabling the employees on the verge of retirement to nominate their chosen dependant for the job.
It also felt that the scheme discriminates between male and female dependants on the specious plea that females cannot 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 (CEDAW).
The bench observed that the scheme keeps out of its purview adopted sons, without keeping in mind the societal obligations under the Juvenile Justice Act, especially Chapter VIII and Section 63 of the Act.
The Order made it clear that “if there is actually a scheme for compassionate appointment to the wards of those who are really medically invalidated and if such a scheme does not fall foul of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution, the same may pass the tests indicated by the Supreme Court in V Sivamurthy’s case.”
