IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10052 OF 2021 Between; Smt K.Jaya Lakshmi, D/o.K.Srinivasulu (Late) Age 38 years, Occ Unemployee, R/o. H.No. 2/83 Rangarajupeta, Koilkuntia, Kumool District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The District Collector, Kumool, Kumool District. 2. The Superintending Engineer, RWS and Sanitation, Kumool, Kumool District. 3. The Executive Engineer, RWS and S(P) Division Nandyal Kumool District. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, RWS and S Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS: A) By declaring the entire action of the respondents, particularly the entire action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not considering the genuine claim of the petitioner for suitable appointment on compassionate grounds in the place of her late father who died while in service on 6-9-2012, despite of proposals submitted by the 2nd respondent vide his Lr.No C6/280/CA/2013 dated 19-3-2013 to the 1st respondent, consequent on application made by the petitioner is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colorable exercise of power, contrary to various judicial pronouncements in the subject matter including scheme notified by the Govt, for the Children of the deceased who die in harness. B) And consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the genuine claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in a suitable post in the place of her late father Sri. K.Srinivasulu who died while in service on 16-9-2012, by duly considering the proposals submitted by the 2nd respondent vide Lr.No.C6/280/CA/2013 dated 19-3-2013 to the 1st respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the genuine claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in a suitable post in the place of her late father Sri. K.Srinivasulu who died while in service on 16-9-2012, by duly finalizing the proposals submitted by the 2nd respondent vide his Lr.No.C6/280/CA/2013 dated 19-3-2013 to the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010178232021 r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] Pi*: THURSDAY JHE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10052/2021 Between; Smt K.jaya Lakshmi, ...PETITIONER AND The District Collector and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “ to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS (A) By declaring the entire action of the respondents particularly the entire action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not considering the genuine claim of the petitioner for suitable appointment on compassionate grounds in the place of her late father who died while in service on 16-9-2012 despite of proposals submitted by the 2"*^ respondent vide his Lr.No.C6/280/CA/2013, dated 19-3-2013 to the 1 St 2 respondent, consequent on application made by petitioner is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colorable exercise of power contrary to various judicial pronouncements in the subject matter including scheme notified by the Govt, for the Children of the deceased who die in harness (B) And consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the genuine claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in a suitable post in the place of her late father Sri.K.Srinivasulu who died while in service on 16-9-2012 by duly considering the respondent vide dated 19-3-2013 to the 1 the proposals submitted by the 2 Lr.No.C6/280/CA/2013, nd St respondent 2. Heard Mr.S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV, for the respondents and 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the i involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court Writ Petition No.7059 of 2021, dated 18.10.2024. issue in 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 5. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the above said order of this Court, this Writ Petition is also allowed, in terms of the Order in Writ Petition No.7059 of 2021, dated 18.10.2024. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post, from the date of death of her father i.e., w.e.f. 16.09.2012 with all service benefits within a period a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy I 3 of this order. However, the petitioner is not entitled to claim monetary benefit, she was not appointed to the post on the principle of ‘NO WORK - NO as PAY’. No order as to costs. 6. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. 7. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the Order in Writ Petition No.7059 of 2021, dated 18.10.2024, to this Order. Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. The Superintending Engineer, RWS and Sanitation, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. The Executive Engineer, RWS and S(P) Division Nandyal Kurnool District. 4. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, RWS and S Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Guntur District. 5. One CC to SRI. SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES IV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three C.D.Copies (along with the copy of the order dated 18-10-2024 in WP.No.7059 of 2021) nm HIGH COURT DATED:02/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.10052 of 2021 I" 3 1 JAN 2025 ^ . Current Section1 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS i A- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA R WRIT PETITION NO: 7059 OF 2021 Between: Siripalli Ammulu, W/o. Late Narasimha Rao, D/o. Late V. Jagadeesh, Aged 41 years, R/o. D.No. 10-14/3-17, Akulavari Street, I Town, Mallikarjunapet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.. 2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P. Gollapudi, Vijayawada. 3. Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Rep. by its Executive Officer ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue writ order may or direction more particularly writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the cadre of sweeper in the establishment of the 3^^^ respondent temple in the place of her father V. Jagadeesh as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as sweeper from the date of the death of her father i.e., w.e.f., 24.6.2013 and to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits and pass 14 rs lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances f*- Ata.ted In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be ■^to direct the respondents to consider the representations dated 2g;3402'1,29.1.2017, 13.6.2015.21.1.2015, 11.10.2014. '7!. % \ , Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. V. SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. MADHAVA REDDY, SC FOR NDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010122462021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7059/2021 Between: Siripalli Ammulu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.DVSASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.K MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS AR) 2.GP FOR SERVICES I 3.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: " to issue writ order or direction more particularly writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting appointment to the petrtioner on compassionate grounds in the cadre of sweeper in the establishment of the 3"^respondent temple in the place of her father V.Jagadeesh as bad illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as sweeper from the date of the death of her father i.e., w.e..f 24.6.2013 and to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits and pass... 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her father while working Sweeper on regular basis in the establishment of S'^respondent temple has died on 24.06.2013 leaving behind his two daughters i.e., the petitioner herein and her elder sister namely Edukondalu Mohana. It is stated that after demise of her father, they have approached the office of the 3rd respondent temple seeking release of the monetary and service benefits of her father and submitted representations dated 11.10.2014, 21.1.2015, 13.6.2015 along with the Transfer Certificate and other relevant documents. Accordingly, the then Executive Officer has issued proceedings dated -06-2015 to produce the Succession Certificate. As such the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and filed S.O.P. No.95/2015 and obtained Succession Certificate vide order dated 4.2.2016. The then Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent temple has issued proceedings dated 25.11.2016 to produce the Decree copy of obtaining Divorce from herhusband as the petitioner has requested to grant compassionate appointment as her husband deserted the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted representation dated 29.1.2017 informing to the then Executive Officer, she could not trace the whereabouts other husband and requested to grant appointment on compassionate grounds in the place of her father. Later, the Executive Officer of the 3rd r respondent temple has issued proceedings dated 8.2.2019 to release the death benefits of petitioner father to the petitioner and her sister. as While the matter stood thus, the petitioner has submitted representation recently on 20.3.2021 to the respondents 2 & 3 requesting them to grant compassionate appointment in the cadre of sweeper in the place of her deceased father along with the relevant G.O. Ms.No.1357 dated 18.7.2011. but the respondents have not taken any action so far. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed. another 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2""* respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition. Inter alia, it is stated that the petitioner has to place material evidence before claim appointment on compassionate grounds that she is dependent on the deceased employee by the time of death of her father while in service. Admittedly the petitioner Is a married daughter of deceased employee and she has been living along with her husband ever since her marriage and not living with her father after her marriage particularly at the time of death of her father. No doubt, as per G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1999 the married daughter is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds when there is only a married daughter to the deceased employee without older or younger brothers and sisters and the spouse of the deceased employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, such married daughter may be considered, provided she is dependent on the deceased father / employee, subject to satisfying other conditions and instructions issued from time But, the petitioner has not placed any material record in this case to to time. 4 satisfy the above parameters to get appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner has averred that she is a divorced woman and not depending on her husband but the petitioner did not submit divorce order granted by competent court nor produced any other evidence to prove that she was depending on her father by the time of death of the employee. 4. The counter affidavit has been field by the 3^*^ respondent, stated that, as per G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (SER-A) Dept., dt.30.07.1999, the married daughter is eligible for appointment compassionate grounds when there is only a married daughter to the deceased employee without older or younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, such married daughter may be considered, provided she is dependent on the deceased employee subject to satisfying other conditions and instructions issued from time to time. It is stated that the petitioner has requested for appointment compassionate grounds claiming that she is solely dependent on his father as she was deserted from her husband and staying with his father with her children. She was directed to produce divorce decree as proof of her claim. But she failed to produce the same and she could not produce dependence certificate as required. Hence he request for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected vide this Devasthanam Rc.No.A1/2273/2014, Dt.09.07.2018 on the ground that it is on on ( 5 she failed to submit decree copy of divorce and her mother predeceased to the death of her father and not come under compassionate grounds as per G.O MS No.350, Genera Administration Department, Dt.30.07.2019. Hence the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. was 5. Heard Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition contended that, though the petitioner made representations to the respondents 2 & 3 requesting them to grant compassionate appointment in the cadre of sweeper in the place of her deceased along with the death certificate of her father, her husband death certificate, her mother death certificate, brother death certificate, family member certificate and no earning member certificate, the respondents have not taken any action in this is regard is highly illegal and arbitrary. He further contended that, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999, the married daughters also entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds. This Court also held that married daughter is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Under these circumstances, rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that deceased daughter is married daughter is illegal, unjust and contrary to the object of scheme of compassionate appointment He further submits that in similar circumstances, when there was no post in Amaravathi Temple, the 2"'^respondent has issued proceedings in Rc. No.C2/COE/13021(43)/3/2021 dated 5.3.2021 granting compassionate appointment to one attender K.V. Ramya working on outsourcing basis in Amaravathi Temple by creating a supernumerary post of attender on regular basis. The petitioner herein also stand in the similar footing as there is a clear vacancy and she is eligible to claim compassionate appointment in the place of her deceased father. He further submits that the 1st respondent has issued G.O. Ms. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 extending compassionate appointment to the employees working in the Endowments Department, as such, the petitioner appointment on compassionate grounds as per the said G.O. also. is eligible for Unless the petitioner’s case is considered on humanitarian grounds and she is granted the regular timescale in the cadre of sweeper on compassionate grounds, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader also reiterated the contents made in the counter and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also while denying the contents made by the petitioner, submits that in the instant case, the spouse of the deceased Sweeper ! .A. of this Devasthanam namely Smt.Chandra died intestate on 21.10.1992 and the son of the deceased Sweeper namely Mallikarjuna was also died on 25.02.2007 i.e. much prior to the death of Sweeper. The petitioner and her sister got married during the life time of their father. The husband of the petitioner viz., Siripalli Narasimha Rao was died on 28.12.2020 as per the death certificate produced by her which all show that the petitioner is not dependent on the deceased Sweeper as on the date of his death and there are no dependent family members at the time of death of Sweeper and thus there is no scope for providing compassionate appointments to the family members in this case. He further submits that, admittedly the deceased employee is blessed with son and two daughters including the petitioner herein in the wedlock. No doubt the son of the deceased employee was pre deceased his father but admittedly the petitioner is having one sister who is alive. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for appointment compassionate grounds would not lie within the parameters mentioned one on inG.O.Ms.No.350, dated 30.07.1999 even consider no objection given by her sister. It is submitted that the petitioner's father / deceased employee has expired on dated 24.06.2013. She has not produced any evidence to show that she is dependent on her father by that time. Petitioner is bringing different contentions at the belated stage stating that for some time her husband whereabouts are not known and that he expired in the year 2020. But those facts will not prove that she is r 8 dependent on her father at the time of his death. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds in view of death of her father while in service in 3rd respondent- devasthanam and hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the material on record. 10. The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1999 in which it was clarified that when there is only a married daughter to the deceased government employee without older or younger brothers or sisters and the Spouse of the deceased government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, such married daughter may be considered for compassionate appointment, provided she is depending on the deceased government employee and subject to satisfying the other conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time. 11. The relevant clauses of the scheme of compassionate appointment in the consolidated instructions issued by the State Government in Circular Memo No.60681/ Ser.A/2003-1. General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003 are extracted as hereunder: II. Depending family members means; (a) Spouse, (b) Son/daughter of regular Government employees. f 9 (i) X X X X (ii) X X X X (iii) wnen there Is only a married daughter to the deceased government employee without older or the younger brothers or sisters and the Spouse of the deceased government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, such married daughter may be considered for compassionate appointment, provided she is dependent on the deceased government employee. 12. On careful examination of G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1999 and Circular Memo No.60681/ Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003, it was mentioned therein that the married daughters also entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds subject to certain conditions. 13. The object of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to support the family of the deceased government servant, who dies in harness. The aim and object of the policy for compassionate appointment is to provide financial support to the family of the deceased employee, who left the dependents in distress and penury. The core aim of the object of providing compassionate appointment is to relief the family from financial sufferings being faced for the sudden demise of the Bread Winner of the family. The sufferings being faced by the dependents of the deceased employee for sudden demise of the Bread Winner could be solved for some extent by providing compassionate appointment to the one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. While the State Government and its instrumentalities implementing the scheme of compassionate appointments to h'elprthe destitute families of the deceased 10 V. employees, but incorporating such clause in eligibility criteria discriminating the daughters, who are being married is appears to be illegal and unjust. 14. It appears from the above condition of eligibility criteria that there is no such condition for ‘son’ whether he is married or unmarried. But with respect to the daughter, it was mentioned that ‘unmarried daughter’ is only eligible. The married daughters are declared as ineligible on the ground that she is married. Showing discrimination towards ‘married daughter’ because she is being married as and when there is no such ineligibility applicable to a ‘married son’ appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory. 15. This Court is of the considered opinion that the sons and daughters whether they are unmarried or married, they are part of the family of their parents for the entire life. Just because of the daughter is got married, saying that she is not the member of her parents family is nothing but atrocities. Because of her marriage the daughter would not cease her status as member of the family of her parents. 16. On careful consideration of the provisions of this Act, the obligation to look after or take care of their parents by the daughters after their marriage has not taken away. The married daughter also has the obligation and responsibility to attend the needs of her parents to lead normal life. As such, it is clear from the provisions of the Act No.56/2007 also there is no difference between the sons and daughters whether they I 11 are married or unmarried in discharging their responsibilities and obligations towards their parents. 17. This Court has fortified the judgments rendered by various High Courts, which are extracted as hereunder: 18. In a case of Smt.Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik vs The State of Karnataka and others\ wherein the learned Judge of this Court, while dealing with the object of compassionate appointments succinctly dealt with the legal position and allowed a Writ Petition, wherein a challenge was laid to Rule 2{1) (a) (i). Rule 2(1) (b) and Rule 3(2) (i) (c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, holding inter alia as follows; “If the marital status of a son does not make any difference in Law to his entitlement for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the marital status of a daughter should make no difference, as the married daughter does not seize to be a part of the family and Law cannot make an assumption that married sons atone continue to be the part of the family/’ 19. In Mamata Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others^, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, in a similar issue arose with regard to non consideration of married daughter for compassionate appointment, it is observed as extracted hereunder: True it is that under the Constitution of India it is impermissible for State to draw any assumption to use marriage as a rationale for p^'actidng an act of hostile diSCTiminalion by denying benefit(s) to a daughter, when equivalent benefits are being granted to a son in terms of compassionate appointment. Marriage neither alters the relationship between the married daughters with her parents, nor creates severance of relationship. A son remains a son and his marriage does not alter or severe his relation with his parents, likewise, a daughter is always a daughter to her parents, her marriage also does not ‘2020 see Online Kar 3397 ^2020 sec Online HP 2125 12 ,v alter or severe her relation ^ gender, then that line has to v..thst^^^^ ,^,3 ^ase. the rsS^^S"dSincL''as%°4wfb; ihe respondents, debarring the married daughter is, could not withstand the test of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. «, Anocer point, wNcn - dependency on her parents ceases or it nraoertv etc and these rights don't cease with are available to sons, be it succession. "9^ " prope^ etcjnd^^^^^^ 9 marriage of a daughter and ",f be r^^^^ as a reasonable and and it does not affect the p deLndency (herein financial dependency), many acceptable ground ^ situaTo^where^a son is not in need of compassionate LTto fSuS^n g-nS mat she is married, who looks towards the State with the eyes of hope. . State of U.P. and 20. In Smt. VImla Srivastava and others vs others®, the High Court of Allahabad observed as hereunder; ■TPS issue bsfor, me Court is "re*--« mer cf“?rug«ifi»' defining me ambil of “lo ^ compassionate appointment. Ttie uciiimiy >'•'1' Honu hpr the benefit ot compassionate constitutionally be a permissible ground ^ . imolicit in the definition which has been adopted matter can be looked at from a vanety of P®^sP^.ves^ 30S Sntinues t° b? a member of the family and by the state in Rule 2 (c) is an f ^ f of me faSly of his famer, a daughter upon marriage that upon marriage, he does no to be a f^art ^ ^ constitutionally impermissible for ceases to be a part of the family of her famer It is disaim.natorv a make that assumption daughter wnen eq continuance of the relationship of a the State to oUhrwssiontmrppo^^^^ of the compassionate appointment wamage uu^ continues to be a son both before and after child, whether a son or a daughter, with he pare^^ A ^ ,3^ marriage. A daughter continues to ^ relationship between, a father and upon marriage. Mamage does hnng abou ^“ jf^ese relationship are not governed or mother and their son or between P,fff its reply and the foundation of the exclusion defined by s‘atus. The s a e ^ patriarchal notions must answfMh® on a oatemalistic notion of the role and status of a woman test the guarantee of equality under Article 14 and must be gender identity under Article 15. Trte s«nd Which has been teKen b, ,he dVughSiS notion of the position of a «man in out ® dLghter becomes a member of the family of her marriage. The affidavit postuj^es hat .^^^3 second basjs husband and the responsibili^ > ! ,h!nn Sndu lL a mLied daughter cannot be considered which has been indicated in the affidavit 'f^ inri„ Family The assumption that after mamage. a as dependent of her famer or a ®j^^^^'^g.^herTahe or mat she ceases to be dependent daughter cannot be said to be a member 0^ the fa^'ly 0^ I?®/ society is governed by on her father irrespective of social ^ „ justifiable ground to define and exclude from constitutional principles. Marriage arnnot ^^®9®j[^®^ his adopted a social welfare policy which is who constitutes a member of oJcoLSonate is a test of dependency with grounded on dependency. The test ^ r jug debased go.vernment servant may not be defined relationships. There in need of compassionate appointment ^®J? J! gconornicS finandal position of the family of the ^ - appointment on a preferential basis. But deceased are not such as to require the grant ® SSned a priori on the basis of the dependency or a lack of dependency is ® ^®'dauqhti of a deceased should be granted whemerornotmeson ismarriud. Similarhr. whemer or not a d^ug^^^^^^^ ^ consideration of all held answerable to the recognition of ^ 2016(1) ADJ 21 (DB 13 % daughters purely on the ground of marriage would constitute and impermissible disaimination and be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. A variety of situations can be envisaged where the application of the rule would be invidious and discriminatory. The deceased government servant may have only surviving married daughters to look after the widowed parent- father or mother. The daughters may be the only persons to look after a family in distress after the death of the bread earner. Yet, under the rule no daughter can seek compassionate appointment only because she is married. The family of the deceased employee will not be able to tide over the financial crisis from the untimely death of its wage earner who has died in harness. The purpose and spirit underlying the grant of compassionate appointment stands defeated. In a given situation, even though the deceased government employee leaves behind a surviving son, he may not in fact be looking after the welfare of the surviving parents. Only a daughter may be the source of solace emotional and financial, in certain cases. These are not isolated situations but social realities in India. A surviving son may have left the village, town or state in search of employment in a metropolitan city. The daughter may be the one to care for surviving parent. Yet the aile deprives the daughter of compassionate appointment only because she is married. Our law must evolve in a robust manner to accommodate social contexts. The grant of compassionate appointment is not just a social welfare benefit which is allowed to the person who is granted employment. The purpose of the benefit is to enable the family of a deceased government servant, who dies in harness, to be supported by the grant of the compassionate appointment to a member of the family. Excluding a married daughter from the arnbit of the family may well defeat the object of the social welfare benefit. Dealing with the aspect of marriage, the Division Bench held as follows: "Marriage does not have and should not have a proximate nexus with identity. The identity of a woman as a woman continues to subsist even after and notwithstanding her marital relationship. The time has, therefore, come for the Court to affirmatively emphasis that it is not open to the State, if it has to act in conformity with the fundamental principle of equality which is embodied in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, to discriminate against married daughters, by depriving them of the benefit of a horizontal reservation, which is made available to a son irrespective of his marital status.”” 21. In N. Uma vs. The Director of Elementary School Education & others, Writ Petition No.25366 of 2008, decided on 22.09.2017, the High Court of Madras has observed as hereunder; "13. All the above judgments have clearly obsen/ed that the State Government should not discriminate inspite of giving compassionate appointment to the sons and daughters of the deceased employee. When the Government is giving appointment to the married sons, they should not deny to give employment to the manied daughters. But in this case, only on the ground of marriage of this petitioner, who is the daughter of the deceased mother, is denied by citing marriage as a reason and such action of the State is against the very scheme of the Constitution. The preamble of the constitution ensures equality of status and opportunity to all its citizens. The Government should not discriminate or deprive to woman on the ground of marriage, while the same is r not a restriction in the case of a man. 14. Admittedly, in this case, the deceased employee has died during the course of the employment by leaving her two daughters viz., M.Manjula and M.Indra. Infact, the elder daughter of the deceased employee by viz., M.Manjula is c. mentally retarded person and this petitioner, who is the second daughter of the deceased employee should take care of the first daughter. But, without considering ail the above Government Orders and the judgments of this Court passed in the above writ petitions and the pathetic condition of the petitioner's family, the respondent mechanically passed the present impugned order by stating that the petitioner is a married woman and hence she is not entitled to the compassionate appointment. Again, the view of the respondent is totally illegal and he had not applied his mind. In ail the above judgments cited supra, this Court directed the Government Authorities to give employment to the married daughter without discrimination but this respondent purposely rejected the request of the petitioner on the sole ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased employee. 14 NiitriH^ni n R-Govindammal Vs. Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and ^ Programme Department. Chennai in 2015 (5) CTC 344 has direct^ the first resSndent to provide cotTipassionate appointment to the petitioner, is she is otherwise eligible without reference to thfS, L" h"® r""" ^ ^ direction ot the cS SeaeZ S toe Tamil Nadu Government, to suitably modify the Government Order in G.O.Ms No 165 Labour^nd Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 in the light of ote observations made above 16. The learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondent Mr.R Viiayakumar aroued that toe impugned order dated NIL was passed in accordance with the above Governtnerit Orders lince ote ‘^^"sidered opinion and by going through the above judgments and on perusing the PAncT passed by the respondent it is unfortunate to note here that the respondent without considenng the pathetic situation of the petitioner's case that the elder sister viz. M Manjula >s a r^3enf by her family merHel ote has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without mentioning any other ground ex^pl the ground ot married daughter. All ote above cases cited supra has rightly direded ote oeHtonorm? ° f “'^passionate appointment without reference to the marria^ of the petitioner. In the present case also, the above judgment is squarely applicable." (emphasis supplied) ? decisions apply on all fours to the case on hand. In the instant case the Son!?K ‘be other legal heirs have given no objection to the S granted appointment on compassionate grounds, it cannot be stated that the petitioner is pSents Lii ?eSr°riS f because she is r married. That apart. Maintenance and Welfare of the fparJnt ^ responsibility on both the son and daughter to take care of artificial classification between married son and married daughter only on the a nan IfMf’ T tantamount to gender discrimination. If married son is considered to be indudedinThStooSily. a "'a™d daughter should hol be be supposed to take care of the parents at ote old age. The married son is to I ^ unmarned daughter. No considering the married daughter for compassionate appointment merely on ote basis of marriage is patently arbitrary and unreasonable. 22. In Udham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. & another vs. Anjula Singh and others'^, the High Court of Uttarkhand (Full Bench) held as hereunder; non-inclusion of a "married daughter" in the definition of a "family", under rule 2(c) of ote 1974 Rules and the note below Regulation 104 of the 1975 Regulations, thereby denying her the opportunity of being consider^ for compassionate appointment, even though she was dependent on the Government servant at the time of his death, is discriminatory and is in violation of Articles 14.15 and 16 in Part III of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, a "married daughter” was also held ot fall within ote inclusive definition of "family" of the deceased Government servant, for the- purpose of being provided compassionate appointment under the 1974 Rules and the 1975 Regulations. Thus, the judgment (supra) IS fully applicable to the present case." 23. In C.B. Muthamma vs. Union of India', the Hon'ble Apex Court at para Nos.6 and 7 observed as extracted hereunder; ^ 2019(3) STC 570 (Uttarakhand) = (2019) 2 UPLB ECl 15 • A-, 6. At the first blush this rule is in defiance of Article 16. If a married man has a nght, a mamed woman, other things being equal, stands on no worse footing This misogynous posture is a hangover of the masculine culture of manacling the weaker sex forgetting how our struggle for national freedom was also a battle against woman's thraldom. Freedom is ndiyisible, so is Justice. That our founding faith enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 should have been tragically ignored vis-a-vis half of India’s humanity viz. our women, is a sad reflection on the distance between Constitution in the book and law in action. And if the executive as the surrogate of Parliament ^igh political office, even 2019(3) STC 570 EC1 (1979) 4 see 260 diplomatic assignment has been filled by women, the inference of diehard allergy to gender parity is inevitable. 7 We do not mean to universalise or dogmatise that men and women are equal In all occupations and ‘he need to pragmatise where the requirements of particular employment, the sensitivities of sex or the peculiarities of societal sectors or the handicaps of either sex may cornpel selectivity. But save where the differentiation is demonstrable, the rule of equality must govern. This weed of our Constitution has at last told on our governmental mentation, perhaps partly pressured by the pendency pf this very writ petition. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that Rule 18(4) (referred to earlier) has been deleted on November 12, 1973. And. likewise, the Central Government’s affidavit avers that Rule 8(2) is on its way to oblivion since its deletion is being gazetted. Better late than never. At any rate, we are relieved of the need to scrutinise or strike down these rules. 24. In Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs. State of Maharashtra®, the High Court of Bombay (DB) held at para No. 13 as extracted hereunder; 13. From the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Government Resolution dated 20-2-2004 to the extent it excludes a married daughter from being member of the ’'family"a deceased retail license holder is violative of the provisions of the Articles U 15 and 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Minister, Food and Civil bupphes and Consumer Protection while passing the impugned order dated 17-6-2009 has taken into consideration the position as obtained from Government Resolution dated 20-2-2004. Hence the claim of the petitioner for being treated as a legal representative of deceased Godavaribai J. Jadhav has not been considered as the petitioner was considered to be a married daughter. In view of our aforesaid findings, the revision application under clause- 16 of the Licensing Order. 1979 will have to be remitted back for fresh decision in the light of our aforesaid findings. Hence, we pass the following order; Government (a) The mioonno . Resolutions/Circulars dated 22-12-1997, 16-8-2001. iu-iy-20Q3 and 20-2-2004 to the extent they exclude a married daughter from being considered as a member of the family’’ of a deceased retail license holder (2014) 5 Mah LJ 543 are held to be violative of the provisions of Articles 14.15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India: 25. In Sou.Swara Sachin Kulkarni (Kumari Deepa Ashok Kulkarni) . The Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle and another, the Bombay High Court held at para No.2 as extracted hereunder: vs 2. The petitioner claims that her ... , . , has been deleted only because she is married. A married daughter could not nave laid a claim for compassionate employment, because in the perception of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. She IS no longer a part of the family of the deceased. It is this stand, which is questioned before us in this writ ® (1979) 4 see 260 ® (2014) 5 Mah U 543 ^ 2013 see Online BOM 1549 (DB) 16 are peculiar. The. submitted that the facts in this case T.e .«ond no.— "SSSiSSS the deletion of her name Constitution of India. \y«; K rnf Police Hyderabad City and others vs. K- 26. In Commissioner of Police, nyu . the High Court of Andhra that respondent- applicant in she failed to deceased father at the time house along with her garments, and despite that identical Pradesh while considering an married daughter and 8 Padmaja in the said case was issue with the show that she was staying residing in a separate livelihood by sewing the produce any proof to of his death and she was husband and was eking her this Court held as under: “Even if the appli^nt oSTppliSnf^s conJrned, it J^e^^^dow^of compassionate appointment. and Collector, Anantapuramu extracted hereunder. . District of Andhra Pradesh held as 27. In V. Shashi Kala vs 9 , the High Court others K f the dec63s®^ snd shs along storrr" rirr^p-e?. ca..».«s.cop. after their marriage when tney uu category." are of the decisions of fit to allow of the in not ina reasons and in view 28. In view of the foregoing Hon’ble Apex present writ petition, while declaring the action Court referred to above, this Court deems of the respondents * 2013(4) ALT 501-(D.B) ’ 2019(3)ALD 338 (DB) X f granting appointment to the petitioner on conipassionate grounds in the cadre of sweeper in the establishment of father V.Jagadeesh, as illegal and arbitrary. respondent temple in the place of her 29. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as sweeper or in any suitable post, from the date of death of her father i.e., w.e.f. 24.06.2013 with all service benefits only within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of this order. receipt of a copy of However, the petitioner is not entitled to claim monetary benefit, as she was not appointed to the post on the principle of ‘NO WORK — PAY". No order as to costs. NO 30. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// / SE OFFICER One fair copy to the DR JUSTICE (for His Lordships Kind Perusal) K. MANWIADHA RAO To. 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Pradesh,* Secretariat, Velagapudi, 2. The Commissioner, Endowments Vijayawada. (Endowments) Dept, State of Andhra Amaravathi.. Department A.P. Gollapudi, 3. The Executive Officer, Sri Durga Mafleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada. Krishna District 4. One CC to Sri D, V. Sasidhar, 5. One CC to Sri K. Madhava Advocate [OPUC] *^®cldy, SC for EndowmentsfOPUC] . Two CCS to GP tor Services-I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 7. Two CC’ [OUT] s to GP for Endowments, High Court of A.P. at AmaravatifOUTj 8. 9 LR Copies 9. The Under Secretary, Union Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary. A.P. Advocates’ Buildings, Amaravathi. Three CD Copies. of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and 10. Association Library. High Court 11. ssb