Air India v Nergesh Meerza & Ors 1981,

Air India v Nergesh Meerza & Ors 1981 AIR 1829
Article 14
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law
or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Facts:
Air India v Nergesh Meerza & Ors 1981
Regulations 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations was challenged.
Discrimination based on sex.
stating it to be ultra vires of Articles 14,15,16 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Facts:
Air India v Nergesh Meerza & Ors 1981
Regulation 46 Air India Employees Service Regulations
Retiring Age:
Subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (ii) hereof an employee shall retire from the service of the Corporation upon attaining the age of 58 years, except in the following cases when he/she shall retire earlier:
(c) An Air Hostess, upon attaining the age of 35 years or on marriage if it takes place within four years of service or on first pregnancy, whichever occurs earlier
Facts:
Air India v Nergesh Meerza & Ors 1981
Regulation 47 Of Air India Employees Service Regulations
Extension of Service.
Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 46, the services of any employee, may, at the option of the Managing Director but on the employee being found medically fit, be extended by one year at a time beyond the age of retirement for an aggregate period not exceeding two years, except in the case of Air Hostesses and Receptionists where the period will be ten years and five years respectively.”
Question:
Regulation 46 & 47 are violative of Articles 14,15, 16 of the Constitution of India
Arbitrary power under section 47.
Court:
The bench had rejected the petition unanimously
article 14 only forbids against hostile discrimination and not against reasonable classification
these regulations are on an arbitrary and unreasonable basis (by making a classification on the basis of sex)
clauses regarding retirement and pregnancy as unconstitutional & similar way Regulation 47.
Birth of third child instead of pregnancy.

Пікірлер: 4

  • @kajaldubey927
    @kajaldubey9275 ай бұрын

    Thanks sir🙏

  • @AyosiSreja
    @AyosiSreja5 ай бұрын

    Thanks Sir

  • @user-hl6vg9wq2p
    @user-hl6vg9wq2p4 ай бұрын

    who is petitioner here and how is it related to the like u said rejected the petition unamimously

  • @previousnotes

    @previousnotes

    4 ай бұрын

    writ petition originally filed by Nergesh Meerza & ors. Respondent No. 1 was (Air India), later Air India moved SC for transfer of the writ petition filed by the petitioners in the Bombay High Court because the constitutional validity of Regulation 46(1) and other questions of law were involved.

Келесі