Army Nurse Terminated For Marriage, Awarded 60 Lakhs As Damages

Written by:

Adv Shubham Jindal

Updated: 08-03-2024

Categories

General Legal issues

Common Marriage Problems

Property Issues

Bail

Marriage and Divorce

Cyber Fraud

startup

RERA

Current Affairs

corporate

statutory Compliances

Case Law

Share with your community:

Calling the termination of a woman employee, on the basis of her being married, as a “coarse case of gender discrimination” and as “constitutionally impermissible”, the Supreme Court has ordered to Centre to pay ₹ 60 lakh as compensation to a military nurse who was removed from service in 1988 after she got married.

Facts of the Case

John was selected for Military Nursing Service (MNS) as a trainee at Army Hospital, Delhi, in December 1982. She was granted commission in December 1985 to the rank of lieutenant in the MNS and posted at Military Hospital, Secunderabad. She then married an Army officer in April 1988.
However, John was released from the MNS months later in August 1988. She has since alleged she was removed without any show-cause notice or hearing and not given any opportunity to defend her case.
The regional bench of the AFT in Lucknow set aside her dismissal and ordered a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to John in 2016. The central government and the Army then challenged this order in the Supreme Court.

Decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal-

As per the order of the AFT, the order of termination of John’s removal was on the basis of her low ACR profile.
An ACR, or annual confidential report, provides an officer’s performance and potential, as well as provides feedback on areas which they could improve. Salina John, instead alleged that her dismissal was merely due to “personal bias” and that she was not graded low on her ACR. It was claimed that the principal matron of the hospital was annoyed by her marriage to the officer.
The AFT, while speaking of love, ruled in the favour of John. The AFT said that when the petitioner decided to marry, the respective authorities should have offered their best wishes for the upcoming union and a happy marriage life, but on the contrary they the couple was caused “mental pain and agony”.
The tribunal observed that as per the service rules, the petitioner had to be removed by the Government after it had obtained the consent of the President, but in this case the removal was ordered by the Lt. Colonel
The AFTalso found that Selina John’s work was never actually assessed so as to find her unsuitability necessary to make entry in the ACR.

Judgement by the Supreme Court

In 2019, the Centre filed an appeal against the order of the Tribunal in the Supreme Court, where the case was decided by the bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Dutta of the Supreme Court..
In the order dated February 14, the Court observed that the judgement of the Tribunal need not be interfered. Though, the rule mentioned in the Army Instruction No. 61 of 1977, titled as “Terms and conditions of service for the grant of permanent commissions in the Military Nursing Service”rule was indeed passed in the year 1977 allowing the dismissal of Military Nursing Service on the grounds of marriage, however it was withdrawn in Aug 1995..
The Bench observed that the rule was ex facie manifestly arbitrary, as termination of female staff merely because they got married is a case of coarse case of gender discrimination and inequality, and accepting such patriarchal rule is against human dignity, and the right against discrimination as well as fair treatment.
The Court held that such gender based bias rules are not permissible constitutionally, and thus such dismissal would be unconstitutional.
The Court ordered the victim to be reinstated in service within a period of three months and in case she reached the age of superannuation of rank, she must be paid a full salary till the age of superannuation, i.e. 55 years or more, with a notional promotion, as well as the required pension and other post-retirement benefits.
In addition the Court ordered a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to be paid, it observed that it is an irony that the victim had to give 25 years of her life to seek justice from the Court, when it was her who suffered from highhandedness.

The pleasure and happiness of life which was denied to the victim could not be compensated in terms of money, but in a symbolic manner, she is entitled for all the exemplary costs and service benefits in order to maintain the majesty of law in our democratic system.

Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com

Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993