Denied a job because she was a woman, 63-year-old wins 36-year legal battle as Supreme Court awards ₹12 lakh
The job paid Rs 34 a day and came with pensionary benefits.
- Sep 27, 2026,
- Updated Sep 27, 2026 1:13 PM IST
A 63-year-old woman from Haryana’s Karnal has won a 36-year legal battle against the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) after the Supreme Court found that she was denied a job at an LPG bottling plant because she was a woman. The court awarded Sumitra compensation of Rs 12 lakh, The Indian Express reported on Sunday.
Sumitra was 24 when she first applied for a peon or khalasi (helper) position at IOC’s LPG bottling plant in her village Guda in Haryana’s Karnal. The job paid Rs 34 a day and came with pensionary benefits. She was shortlisted for the interview but was not among those finally appointed.
Of the 49 people who had applied from her village, 43 were selected. Sumitra said she was told that she was not selected because she was a woman.
“I was told it’s because I’m a woman. All 43 gradually got promoted to the post of supervisor, and eventually earned a monthly salary of around Rs 1.5 lakh and pension benefits. But I was left to work for private companies and earn between Rs 100 and Rs 14,000 a month,” she told the Indian Express.
Don't Miss: 'Going to look very different in 365 days': US Labor Dept watchdog warns amid H-1B crackdown
The 43 men were initially appointed as daily wagers and had their services regularised at the plant after two years. Sumitra, meanwhile, continued working for factories and private companies without regular employment.
Sumitra was registered as an unemployed person with the Employment Exchange in Gharaunda, Karnal, when IOC decided to acquire village land to set up the LPG bottling plant.
Her husband, Satbir Singh, said IOC acquired 120 acres of land, including 80 acres belonging to the village panchayat and 40 acres acquired from farmers, with a promise of jobs for local youths.
“Among those who made it to the interview was Sumitra, who had studied up to Class 12. All 49 shortlisted candidates were asked to appear for an interview on October 26, 1988,” Singh said.
“All 43 others from our village were selected as daily wagers, and after two years, had their services regularised at the plant. Sumitra and I, meanwhile, remained without regular employment and continued working for factories and private companies,” Singh said.
36-year legal battle
Sumitra approached a sub-judge in Karnal in 1989, who ruled in her favour. The ruling came after a deputy manager at IOC admitted that Sumitra “had fulfilled all the eligibility conditions but was not taken as she was a woman”.
However, subsequent rulings in the Karnal district court in 1993 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in October 2025 went against her. She approached the Supreme Court in January.
In its defence before the Supreme Court, IOC argued that Sumitra’s claim was based on the deputy commissioner’s recommendation that providing a job to everyone whose land was acquired was “neither legally binding nor mandatory”.
The Supreme Court Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, however, said the key question was whether Sumitra could be excluded from consideration merely because she was a woman after being treated as eligible and put through the same recruitment process as other candidates.
“The question, however, which was required to be examined, was somewhat different. The issue is whether the appellant, having been treated as eligible, called for interview and subjected to the same recruitment processes as like [the] other candidates, could thereafter be excluded from consideration merely because she was a lady?” the Bench said.
The court also rejected the explanation that the work involved handling cylinders, working at odd hours and predominantly working with male employees.
The explanation “cannot be a lawful basis for excluding an otherwise eligible woman candidate when Corporation’s own recruitment requisition declared that women were eligible”, the court said.
Must Read: Moving homes in the US? Why a postal address change will not update your immigration file
Sumitra’s life after the job rejection
The case has stretched across 36 years, longer than the period Sumitra would have spent working at the plant had she been appointed.
“My husband wrote letters to the then chief minister and prime minister, but nothing came of it,” Sumitra said.
Much has changed since she first approached the court. She is now 63, has two grown sons, both unemployed, and an illness forced her out of a job and into early retirement.
The family now gets by on Satbir Singh’s income of Rs 20,000 a month from his job as a clerk-cum-supervisor at a factory in Panipat.
“I deserved more — at least pensionary benefits extended to others who were recruited with me in 1988,” Sumitra said.
A 63-year-old woman from Haryana’s Karnal has won a 36-year legal battle against the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) after the Supreme Court found that she was denied a job at an LPG bottling plant because she was a woman. The court awarded Sumitra compensation of Rs 12 lakh, The Indian Express reported on Sunday.
Sumitra was 24 when she first applied for a peon or khalasi (helper) position at IOC’s LPG bottling plant in her village Guda in Haryana’s Karnal. The job paid Rs 34 a day and came with pensionary benefits. She was shortlisted for the interview but was not among those finally appointed.
Of the 49 people who had applied from her village, 43 were selected. Sumitra said she was told that she was not selected because she was a woman.
“I was told it’s because I’m a woman. All 43 gradually got promoted to the post of supervisor, and eventually earned a monthly salary of around Rs 1.5 lakh and pension benefits. But I was left to work for private companies and earn between Rs 100 and Rs 14,000 a month,” she told the Indian Express.
Don't Miss: 'Going to look very different in 365 days': US Labor Dept watchdog warns amid H-1B crackdown
The 43 men were initially appointed as daily wagers and had their services regularised at the plant after two years. Sumitra, meanwhile, continued working for factories and private companies without regular employment.
Sumitra was registered as an unemployed person with the Employment Exchange in Gharaunda, Karnal, when IOC decided to acquire village land to set up the LPG bottling plant.
Her husband, Satbir Singh, said IOC acquired 120 acres of land, including 80 acres belonging to the village panchayat and 40 acres acquired from farmers, with a promise of jobs for local youths.
“Among those who made it to the interview was Sumitra, who had studied up to Class 12. All 49 shortlisted candidates were asked to appear for an interview on October 26, 1988,” Singh said.
“All 43 others from our village were selected as daily wagers, and after two years, had their services regularised at the plant. Sumitra and I, meanwhile, remained without regular employment and continued working for factories and private companies,” Singh said.
36-year legal battle
Sumitra approached a sub-judge in Karnal in 1989, who ruled in her favour. The ruling came after a deputy manager at IOC admitted that Sumitra “had fulfilled all the eligibility conditions but was not taken as she was a woman”.
However, subsequent rulings in the Karnal district court in 1993 and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in October 2025 went against her. She approached the Supreme Court in January.
In its defence before the Supreme Court, IOC argued that Sumitra’s claim was based on the deputy commissioner’s recommendation that providing a job to everyone whose land was acquired was “neither legally binding nor mandatory”.
The Supreme Court Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, however, said the key question was whether Sumitra could be excluded from consideration merely because she was a woman after being treated as eligible and put through the same recruitment process as other candidates.
“The question, however, which was required to be examined, was somewhat different. The issue is whether the appellant, having been treated as eligible, called for interview and subjected to the same recruitment processes as like [the] other candidates, could thereafter be excluded from consideration merely because she was a lady?” the Bench said.
The court also rejected the explanation that the work involved handling cylinders, working at odd hours and predominantly working with male employees.
The explanation “cannot be a lawful basis for excluding an otherwise eligible woman candidate when Corporation’s own recruitment requisition declared that women were eligible”, the court said.
Must Read: Moving homes in the US? Why a postal address change will not update your immigration file
Sumitra’s life after the job rejection
The case has stretched across 36 years, longer than the period Sumitra would have spent working at the plant had she been appointed.
“My husband wrote letters to the then chief minister and prime minister, but nothing came of it,” Sumitra said.
Much has changed since she first approached the court. She is now 63, has two grown sons, both unemployed, and an illness forced her out of a job and into early retirement.
The family now gets by on Satbir Singh’s income of Rs 20,000 a month from his job as a clerk-cum-supervisor at a factory in Panipat.
“I deserved more — at least pensionary benefits extended to others who were recruited with me in 1988,” Sumitra said.