'You Think Women Can't Lift LPG Cylinders?' : Supreme Court Awards Compensation To Woman Denied Job Based On Gender
"It is an affront to womanhood, we can say, and that too by a Government of India undertaking," the Court told the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
In a one-of-a-kind order, the Supreme Court ordered the Indian Oil Corporation to pay compensation of Rs. 12 lakh to a woman who was denied the job for the post of refilling helper at the LPG bottling plant despite being eligible because of her gender. Since she has attained the age of retirement, the Court deemed it fit to award her compensation for the discrimination she suffered.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi came down heavily on the corporation for denying equal opportunity to the woman and remarked that its affront to her dignity.
At the outset, Advocate Himanshu Jain(for the petitioner) sought an adjournment, but the Court stated that it was going to decide it today. The corporation's counsel stated that the list of names was merely a recommendation and that it didn't carry a binding force. He added that the authorities must have found her not suitable, considering that the job requires manual labour as the helper is required to lift the LGP cylinders, and there are night shifts also.
To this, Justice Kumar said: "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[women] lift gas cylinders in their house. When men are not there, it is she who will change the gas cylinder."
The corporation's counsel urged that the matter may be referred to mediation, but the Court refused.
In this matter, the petitioner, a resident of village Gudha, was among 49 persons recommended by a local committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner for employment at Indian Oil Corporation's LPG Bottling Plant. She appeared for an interview for the post of casual khalasi/peon/refilling helper, but was not denied appointment, whereas 43 other candidates received appointment letters.
She challenged the denial before the Trial Court, which held that the petitioner fulfilled the prescribed eligibility conditions and that the evidence of a defence witness showed that she was denied appointment because she is a woman. It consequently directed her absorption on a post of casual employee/administrative post/peon other than labourer.
Against this, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that the petitioner's name had merely been recommended and that she had never been selected, and that the Trial Court had granted relief for a post for which she had not been interviewed. This was again challenged by the petitioner, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide an order dated October 14, 2025, upheld the First Appellate Court order, holding that the petitioner had no legal or vested right to appointment, and that mere alleged rejection on the ground of gender could not furnish a basis for mandatory appointment in the absence of a legal right.
Case Details: SUMITRA Vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.|SLP(C) No. 19874/2026