homeindia NewsLegal Digest | Why the two child norm applied only for normal jobs and not for MPs, MLAs

Legal Digest | Why the two-child norm applied only for normal jobs and not for MPs, MLAs

Ideally the two-child norm should first be a norm for members of Parliament as well as State Assemblies, so as to sound credible and accepted by the masses, observes Legal Writer and Chartered Accountant S Murlidharan.

Profile image

By S Murlidharan  Mar 7, 2024 4:14:16 PM IST (Updated)

Listen to the Article(6 Minutes)
4 Min Read
Legal Digest | Why the two-child norm applied only for normal jobs and not for MPs, MLAs
Case 1: Shutting out employment to a person siring more than two children is constitutional   

The Apex Court, in a couple of writ petitions, recently upheld the policy of the Rajasthan Government to disqualify a candidate from applying for the police constable post for having more than two children with the cut of date being June 1, 2002. 
Such a policy is a perfect fit with the nation’s population control program.  Similar norms exist under the income tax rules exempting leave travel concession (LTC) provided by the employer which was necessitated to check LTC benefitting employees with large families as opposed to employees practising family planning. 
However, it is a provision that must be applicable to our Parliamentarians also or rather they must practise what they preach. In other words, ideally the two-child norm should first be a norm for members of Parliament as well as State Assemblies, so as to sound credible and accepted by the masses.
Case 2: Change of class of use albeit approval for higher load amounts to unauthorised use of electricity  
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently in a matter of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company VS Ramchandra, s/o. Madhavrao Naik, & Another, sustained the Electricity distributor’s heavy bill of 23 lakh on the tenant who had applied for higher load for his coaching classes (commercial use). The coaching class functions in a place where once stood a printing press (industrial use) operated by the owner of the property. 
The Court rightly held that it is one thing to apply for higher load but quite another for hiding the fact of class of usage. Industrial use hitherto attracted concessional tariff which the tenant operating coaching classes wanted to take advantage of. Had he disclosed the reason for higher load as being for commercial purposes, he would have fallen into higher tariff category which commercial usage attracts.  It was the electricity company which found out the class of usage on inspection and not by the revelation by the owner or the tenant. 
Case 3: No second gratuity after retirement from government service 
On February 29, the Gauhati High Court, in a matter — Dr. Jogmaya Saikia VS Union of India & Others, held that if a person retires even voluntarily from a job and takes up another, he/she cannot claim Income Tax benefits of gratuity and pension from the second employer after having gotten both from the first employer. 
It is humbly submitted that this rigidity is not warranted either by law or by realities. Under the Income Tax law, gratuity received from second and subsequent employer is also exempt subject to the overall limit of 20 lac including from the first. This is in realisation of the fact that an employee may for a variety of reason serve several employers during his/her entire employment career.
While it would be unfair on him to expect complete exemption of all the gratuities received from each successive employer, it would be unfair on the part of the government to say that exemption from gratuity is available but only once, which is the case with voluntary retirement compensation under a VRS scheme.
VRS is a different kettle of fish designed to get rid of excess staff and one cannot be expected to receive this benefit from more than one employer during his entire employment career. Therefore, while the condition of once-in-a-lifetime benefit sits well with the concept of VRS, it is repugnant to the spirit of gratuity
 
The author, S Murlidharan, is a Chartered Accountant and legal expert, and share comments and interpretations to important court rulings and judgements. The views expressed are personal.    
Read the previous Legal Digest columns here

Most Read

Share Market Live

View All
Top GainersTop Losers
CurrencyCommodities
CurrencyPriceChange%Change