‘Affront to womanhood’: SC orders Rs 12 lakh compensation for woman who was denied job on gender grounds

New Delhi: In a rare order, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Indian Oil Corporation to pay Rs 12 lakh as compensation to a woman who was denied appointment as a refilling helper at an LPG bottling plant solely because of her gender, despite being eligible.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi came down heavily on the public sector undertaking, terming the denial an affront to the woman’s dignity and womanhood.

Since the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation after years of litigation, the court found it appropriate to award lump-sum compensation rather than order appointment.

“You denied her appointment just because she is a lady? This is disrespect to womanhood. She has now attained superannuation, but she has been prosecuting her right throughout. Award her lump-sum compensation… We are from India, and every day we say respect women and that she is a goddess. It is an affront to womanhood, we can say, and that too by a Government of India undertaking… Day in, day out they lift gas cylinders in their house. When men are not there, it is she who will change the gas cylinder,” Justice Kumar observed.

'Don’t see cooperation as surrender': Supreme Court to Tamil Nadu over land for Navodaya schools

At the outset, the petitioner’s counsel, advocate Himanshu Jain, sought an adjournment, but the bench made it clear it would decide the matter the same day.

The corporation’s counsel contended that the list of 49 names recommended by a local committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner was merely recommendatory and not binding.

He further argued that authorities may have found the woman unsuitable as the job involved manual labour, including lifting LPG cylinders, and night shifts.

The court rejected a request to refer the dispute to mediation.

The petitioner, a resident of village Gudha, was among 49 persons recommended for employment at the Indian Oil Corporation’s LPG Bottling Plant. She appeared for an interview for the post of casual khalasi/peon/refilling helper but was not appointed, while 43 other candidates received appointment letters.

She approached the trial court, which held that she fulfilled the eligibility criteria and that evidence showed she was denied the job because she was a woman.

The court directed her absorption in a casual employee, administrative or peon post other than that of a labourer. The first appellate court reversed the decree, holding that her name had only been recommended, she had never been selected, and the trial court had granted relief for a post for which she was not interviewed.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court , by an order on October 14, 2025, upheld the appellate court’s decision, ruling that she had no legal or vested right to appointment and that mere alleged gender-based rejection could not justify mandatory appointment.