Scribd
Upload
122 views2 pages

Cases Commentary

In the case of Rina Bajracharya v. Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation, the petitioner challenged the gender-discriminatory retirement age provisions for air hostesses compared to male flight attendants, arguing it violated the Constitution of Nepal and international conventions on gender equality. The defense contended that the regulations were constitutional and that the petitioners had accepted the terms upon employment. The court acknowledged the importance of gender equality in modern democracy but did not provide a final ruling in the summary provided.

Uploaded by

Prem Oli
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
122 views2 pages

Cases Commentary

In the case of Rina Bajracharya v. Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation, the petitioner challenged the gender-discriminatory retirement age provisions for air hostesses compared to male flight attendants, arguing it violated the Constitution of Nepal and international conventions on gender equality. The defense contended that the regulations were constitutional and that the petitioners had accepted the terms upon employment. The court acknowledged the importance of gender equality in modern democracy but did not provide a final ruling in the summary provided.

Uploaded by

Prem Oli
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Chapter- 4

Cases

4D))) Rina Bajracharya v. Rpyal Nepal Airlines Corporation

Decision No.: 6898

Judges: Lakshman Prasad Aryal, Krishna Kumar Burma, Dilipkumar Poudel

Petitioner: Rina Bajracharya

Defendanr: His Majesty's Government

Petitioner's claim:

The petitioners were air hostesses permanently employed in Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation. Their
claims were as follows:

i) RNAC' s official's service Regulation 2039: Under this regulation, Rule 16.1.1 has specified the age
of 55 as being the age of retirement in case of steward (male flight attendant). But Rule 16.1.3 of the
same regulation has specified the retirement provision of air hostess as follows- in between age of 30
& 10 years of service tenure, whichever comes first, the air hostess will be given retirement.

In this way, two different retirement threshold for the same job of flight attendance has created
gender disparity between male and female

This provision is against the Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal, 2047 which has provisioned on
gender equality & renounced all sorts of discrimination based on gender.

This provision is against different international conventions that Nepal is a part of, such ass the
Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Hence, in light of all these facts, this discriminatory provision should be declared void.

Defense:

The Defense put forward following points:

i) The RNAC official's service Regulation, 2031 has, in rule 16.1.3 (a) & (b), provisioned that air
hostess could be employed even in ground jobs despite their retirement.

Thus the regulation's provision cannot be said to have put restrictions on woman's right to
freedom.

ii) Article 12 (2) (e) of Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal 2047 has provisioned exception to right to
freedom, wherein it has been mentioned that right to freedom would not be considered to be barred
by making of law to impose any condition or qualification for carrying on any industry, trade,
profession or occupation.

The Regulation's provisions exist on this very constitutional ground, so it cannot be said to be
unconstitutional.

iii) The petitioner air hostesses, while entering the RNAC Service, had agreed upon the conditions of
the service. So, they cannot speak against it now. It goes against principle of Estoppel.

iv) Nothing bars institutions from making laws that are conditional upon employees' innate qualities
or their nature of service. The provisions in question too have been made overseeing the physical
condition and nature of service of women.

So, the writ is faulty and should be quashed.

Court's decision:

The Court built up its final verdict in the following way:

i) The Court acknowledged different international agreements & Conventions such as UDHR 1948,
Convention on the Political Rights of Women 1952,etc. and asserted that gender equality is the heart
of modern democracy.

You might also like