SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation  ||  Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction of Four Men in a 1998 Gang Rape Case  ||  Supreme Court: Privy Purse Privileges of Princely Rulers are Not Enforceable Legal Rights  ||  Delhi HC: Repeated Court Summons May Distress and Re-Traumatize Child Sexual Assault Victims  ||  Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Labeling Someone as a Terrorist Associate Amounts to Defamation  ||  Delhi HC: Setting Aside or Altering a Judge’s Order by a Higher Court Doesn’t Affect Their Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Accused Cannot be Faulted For Smart Replies; Interrogator Must be Sharper  ||  Supreme Court: Belated Jurisdictional Challenge Impermissible After Participation in Arbitration  ||  Supreme Court: Failure to Prove Specific Overt Acts of Each Unlawful Assembly Member Not Fatal  ||  Supreme Court: Parental Salary Alone Cannot Determine OBC Creamy Layer Status    

Air India v. Nergesh Meerza and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (28 Aug 1981)

Taking the discrimination out with the guesswork

MANU/SC/0688/1981

Service

Courts nowadays usually work off a simple formula when faced with differing terms and conditions for appointment and retirement of men and women for the same post: if it discriminates - strike it down; if it it’s unavoidable - be very reasonable. And it has become all the more easier for courts to go down this path, what with India now participatory to many international treatises and covenants for non-discrimination on the basis of gender. In 1981 the Supreme Court had opportunity to deal with Air India’s (and Indian Airline’s) retirement policies towards its air hostesses with none of that assistance. Regulation 46(1)(c) of the Air India Employees Service Regulations was contested for forcing Air Hostesses to retire at the age of 35, and earlier still if they were to get married or pregnant. ‘Local’ and ‘economic’ factors, it justified, necessitated measures that kept retirement ages low. But, the airline’s assumption that after childbirth, or after marriage, a woman would leave the job were “neither logical nr convincing”. Both instances were air hostesses’ personal matters “and the Corporation has nothing to do with the same”. Also snatched was authority under Regulation 47 to extend, on an annual and individual basis, the service of air hostesses beyond the standard retirement age. After all, as the Court put it, “termination of the services of an air hostess under such circumstances is not only a callous and cruel act but an open insult to Indian womanhood the most sacrosanct and cherished institution.”

Relevant : Kathi Ratting Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra MANU/SC/0041/1952 The General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari MANU/SC/0388/1961 Miss C.B. Muthamma v. U.O.I, and Ors. MANU/SC/0580/1979

Tags : AIR INDIA   GENDER DISCRIMINATION   RETIREMENT   AIR HOSTESS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved