Nurses call out gender discrimination in absence of spousal transfer policy
In a letter addressed to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoH&FW), the nurses argued that the lack of such a policy forces them to choose between career and family. They said that continuing in their jobs often means living separately from their spouses, which takes a toll on their personal lives.
'Women in public service are disproportionately affected, often quitting jobs to maintain family unity or care for children. The absence of a spousal transfer policy in institutions under MoH&FW forces healthcare professionals, especially women nurses, to live apart from their families. This adversely affects their family life, children's education, and mental well-being,' the letter noted.
The nurses emphasised that this omission violates Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity in public employment.
They also referred to long-standing government guidelines, including the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandums (OMs) issued in 1986 and 1997, which support posting spouses at the same location to help women balance professional and family responsibilities. The nurses argued that the failure to implement these provisions ignores ground realities, making women vulnerable to career disruptions and leading many to exit the workforce.
The representation also drew attention to the government's own stated commitments to women's empowerment, including policies aimed at increasing women's participation in central government jobs.
'Ensuring co-location of spouses not only supports family welfare but aligns with the government's goals of gender equality and workplace inclusion,' the letter added.
The nurses urged the MoH&FW to introduce a spousal transfer policy for AIIMS and other central medical institutions, in line with DoPT recommendations, to address this critical gap. They stressed that such a policy would uphold constitutional rights, promote gender equality, and prevent women from being indirectly excluded from the workforce due to family responsibilities.
They have also called for the speedy implementation of this long-pending demand and the constitution of a centralized transfer board.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
16 hours ago
- India.com
Double Transport Allowance For 9 Categories Of Central Govt Employees – Check Finance Ministry Latest Order; Category List August 2025
New Delhi: The Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance has issued Compendium of instructions regarding grant of Transport Allowance at double the normal rates to persons with disabilities employed in Central Government. The Central Government employees with following categories of disabilities as mentioned in Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 administered by Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) shall be paid Transport allowance double the normal rates subject to fulfilment of the stipulated conditions: Central Government Employees Double Transport Allowance: Name of Disability 1. Locomotor Disability including Leprosy cure, Cerebral Palsy, Dwarfism, Muscular Dystrophy and Acid Attack victims. 2. Blindness and Low Vision 3. Deaf and Hard of Hearing 4. Speech and Language Disability 5. Intellectual disability including Specific Learning Disabilities and Autism Spectrum Disorder 6. Mental Illness 7. Chronic Neurological conditions, such as Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's disease etc. 8. Disability caused due to blood disorder i.e (a) haemophilia, (b) thalassemia and (c) sickle cell disease. 9. Multiple Disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness which means a condition in which a person may have combination of hearing and visual impairments causing severe communication, developmental and educational problems. The Finance ministry OM said that Spinal Deformity and Spinal Injury are considered as sub-categories of "Locomotor Disability". All other conditions stipulated in the ibid OM dated 15.09.2022 shall remain unchanged. This issues with the approval of Finance Minster. In its OM in September 2022, the finance ministry had mentioned, the rates of Transport Allowance had been revised vide this Department's O.M. No. dated 7th July 2017 as per recommendations of 7th Central Pay Commission. The following rates of Transport Allowance are admissible to Central Government employees w.e.f. 01.07.2017: 1. Employees drawing pay in Pay Level: 9 and above 2. Rates of Transport Allowance per month a. Employees posted in the Cities as per Annexure-l: Rs. 7200 + DA thereon b. Employees posted at all Other Places: Rs.3600+ DA thereon 1. Employees drawing pay in Pay Level: 3 to 8 and those drawing Pay of Rs. 24200/- and above in Level 1 & 2 of the Pay Matrix. 2. Rates of Transport Allowance per month a. Employees posted in the Cities as per Annexure-l: Rs. 3600 + DA thereon b. Employees posted at all Other Places: Rs.1800+ DA thereon 1. Employees drawing pay in Pay Level: 1 and 2 2. Rates of Transport Allowance per month a. Employees posted in the Cities as per Annexure-l: Rs.1350+ DA thereon b. Employees posted at all Other Places: Rs.900 + DA thereon The previous OM had further clarified that for Level 14 and above, if staff car is admissible, such employees may exercise option to avail staff car or higher rate of Transport Allowance at Rs 15750 as admissible to the Officers drawing pay in Level-14 & above of the Pay Matrix in terms of this Department's O.M. dated 07.07.2017. Transport Allowance in lieu of staff car shall be at the rate of Rs.15750 per month plus Dearmess Allowance only and not at the double of this rate.
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- New Indian Express
Nurses call out gender discrimination in absence of spousal transfer policy
NEW DELHI: Nurses in central hospitals have raised concerns with the Central Government over the absence of a spousal transfer policy, calling it a case of indirect gender discrimination. In a letter addressed to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoH&FW), the nurses argued that the lack of such a policy forces them to choose between career and family. They said that continuing in their jobs often means living separately from their spouses, which takes a toll on their personal lives. 'Women in public service are disproportionately affected, often quitting jobs to maintain family unity or care for children. The absence of a spousal transfer policy in institutions under MoH&FW forces healthcare professionals, especially women nurses, to live apart from their families. This adversely affects their family life, children's education, and mental well-being,' the letter noted. The nurses emphasised that this omission violates Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity in public employment. They also referred to long-standing government guidelines, including the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandums (OMs) issued in 1986 and 1997, which support posting spouses at the same location to help women balance professional and family responsibilities. The nurses argued that the failure to implement these provisions ignores ground realities, making women vulnerable to career disruptions and leading many to exit the workforce. The representation also drew attention to the government's own stated commitments to women's empowerment, including policies aimed at increasing women's participation in central government jobs. 'Ensuring co-location of spouses not only supports family welfare but aligns with the government's goals of gender equality and workplace inclusion,' the letter added. The nurses urged the MoH&FW to introduce a spousal transfer policy for AIIMS and other central medical institutions, in line with DoPT recommendations, to address this critical gap. They stressed that such a policy would uphold constitutional rights, promote gender equality, and prevent women from being indirectly excluded from the workforce due to family responsibilities. They have also called for the speedy implementation of this long-pending demand and the constitution of a centralized transfer board.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Hry human rights panel seeks report on baby's severed arm
The Haryana Human Rights Commission (HHRC) has taken suo motu cognizance of an incident at the civil hospital in Mandikhera, Nuh, where a newborn's arm was allegedly severed completely from the body during delivery on July 30, reportedly due to medical negligence. The commission, condemning the act as a grave violation of human rights, has directed the civil surgeon, Nuh, to submit a detailed factual and medical report within 15 days. The incident, which occurred on July 30. (Getty Images) The incident, which occurred on July 30, surfaced following a news report published in a leading daily on August 1. As per the report, Sarjeena (single name) was admitted to Mandikhera civil hospital for childbirth. During delivery, due to alleged negligence by the attending medical staff, the newborn's limb was completely detached. The family was reportedly subjected to verbal abuse and forcibly removed from the hospital when they questioned the medical team. The injured infant was later referred to Nalhar Hospital for further treatment, said the family members. The HHRC's full bench—comprising chairperson justice Lalit Batra (retd) and members Kuldip Jain and Deep Bhatia—termed the case an egregious violation of the right to life and health under Article 21 of the Constitution. The commission also highlighted that the incident breaches international child rights norms under Articles 6 and 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). 'This irreversible and brutal injury to a newborn at the very start of life is an appalling instance of medical negligence,' said justice Batra. 'The failure of established medical protocols, coupled with the reported abusive conduct of hospital staff, underlines a deep crisis in public health accountability.' In its directive, the commission has sought specific details regarding the circumstances of the delivery, the names and designations of the attending doctors and nursing staff, the precise cause of the injury, any immediate or ongoing treatment or rehabilitation offered to the child, and the nature of any departmental or internal inquiries initiated. It has also asked for an explanation regarding the alleged abusive behaviour towards the family. According to Dr Puneet Arora, protocol and information and public relations officer the commission, the commission's order has been forwarded to the additional chief secretary (health), director general health services, and the civil surgeon, Nuh. The hospital did not respond to HT for comments on the incident. A senior health department official said that the case has been forwarded to the medical negligence board for a detailed investigation. 'We have taken all the documents from the hospital. Afterwards, we will question the team involved in the surgery, including the doctor,' he said. The next hearing is scheduled for August 26. The HHRC reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring the safety, dignity, and rights of all citizens, especially vulnerable groups like women and children, in the healthcare system. It assured that stern and appropriate action would follow based on the report's findings.
