I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 184nfi: OF 2024 Between: T. V, Dharani, D/o. Late T.V.Sudharshan Rao, Joint Manager APTDC Vijayawada (ID No: 003031) R/o. D No. 20-3-5H/A104, Pranithareddy Rajeswari Apartments, Sivajyothi Nagar, Tirupati, Tirupathi District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation By Its Managing Director, 5**^ Floor Stallion Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Executive Director (Adm), The Andhra Pradesh Development Corporation, 5^' Floor, Stallion Buildings Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Special Chief Secretary, Tourism & Culture, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Represented Buildings, Autonagar, Tourism Autonagar 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 a writ order more in the nature of writ of mandamus i declaring the action of the may in respondents in not disposing the petitioner and 23.07.2024 seeking expired due to piwf^ as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and representations dated 13.09.2023,11.05.2024 compassionate appointment though petitioner father corona on 08.05.2021 16 of and 2 representations dated 13.09.2023 the Constitution of India ,and consequentially direct the 1 nd respondents to dispose the petitioner 11.05.2024 and 23.07.2024 duly taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No.350 (Ser.A)/Deptt dated GA 30.07.1999, Circular Memo No RC/ENC/F2(l)/Cas/2023 dated 01.09.2023, Memo No.116417/Ser. A/2003- 1 dated 08.10.2003, and GO Rt No.1473 GAD(SER.A)Department '26.07.2023 Dated which stipulates that married daughter is entitled for ■ compassionate appointment as well as the judgements of this Honorable High Court and Supreme Court Of India State of Karnataka and others Vs 17.12.2021,) CN Approve Shree (SLP Civil No.20166/2021 judgment dated in a time frame. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition pleased to direct the respondents 1 and representations dated 13.09.2023,11.05.2024 and 23.07.2024 duly taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No 350 GA (Ser.A)/Deptt dated Circular Memo No. RC/ENC/F2(l)/Cas/2023 dated 01.09.2023 116417/Ser.A/2003-1 the High Court may be 2 dispose the petitioner 30.07.1999, , Memo No dated 08.10.2003, and GO Rt No.1473 GAD(SER.A)Department Dated 26.07.2023, which stipuiales that married daughter is entitled for compassionate appointment as well as the judgements of this Honorable High Court and Supreme Court of India of Karnataka and others Vs CN Approve Shree (SLP Civil judgment dated 17.12.2021,)in a time frame. State No.20166/2021 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI SATEESH KUMAR EERLA, SC FOR AP TOURISAM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR TOURISM The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010362302024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 18405/2024 Between: T. V. Dharani ...PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SATEESH KUMAR EERLASC FOR AP TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2.GP FOR TOURISM The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ, order, more in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not disposing the petitioner representations, dated 13.09.2023, 11.05.2024 and 23.07.2024, seeking compassionate appointment, though petitioner’s father expired due to Corona on 08 05 2021, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially, direct the 1®' and 2"^ respondents to dispose the petitioner representations, dated 13.09.2023, 11.05.2024 and 23.07.2024, duly taking into consideration G. O. CGR, J. W.P. No. 18405 of 2024 f ’ 30.07.1999, Circular Memo. No.RC/ENC/F2l/Cas/2023, dated 01.09 2023 NoJI6417/Ser.A/2003, dated 08.10.2003, and G.O Rt No 1473 G.A. (SER-A) Department, dated 26.07.2023, which stipulates that married daughter is entitled for compassionate appointment as well as the judgements of this Honorable High Court and Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka and others v. C.N. Apoorva Shree (S.L.R(Civil) No.20166/2021, judgment, dated 17 12 2021 in a time frame and pass...” Memo. 2. Petitioners father while working as Joint Manager with the respondent Corporation died in harness on 08.05.2021 due to Carona. Later, petitioner has submitted 14.12.2021, to provide compassionate appointment, daughter of deceased employee and he is survived by wife and son application, dated Petitioner is as well. Petitioner is married and her husband is also an unemployee. Petitioner made repeated representations considering her case for to 1®‘ respondent for compassionate appointment. As respondents have not considered and passed any orders, petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. 2"^^ respondent filed counter-affidavit. However did not dispute the factum of death of petitioner's father while in service and petitioner making application seeking compassionate appointment. In the counter-affidavit, respondents have also submitting various documents admitted to petitioner as required for the purpose of considering her case in terms of the Scheme of compassionate 3 CGR, J. W.P.No 18405 of 2024 appointment. However, an objection has been taken to consider her case as petitioner being married daughter in view of Memo. r No.406/10/A.1/Admn.ll/2004, dated 20.03.2004. Paras.6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit read as under: “6. I submit that as per the checklist for compassionate appointment, the following are furnished by the petitioner: SI. Checklist Yes No. No 1. Death Certificate Yes 2. Caste Certificate (SCs, STs/BC/ Others) No (OC) 3. Family Member Certificate (issued by Tahsildar) Yes 4. Affidavits from all the family members (issued by Tahsildar) Yes 5. No earning member certificate (issued by Tahsildar/ Revenue Officer) Yes 6. Educational Certificates of the applicant Yes submit that the only ambiguity to consider the petitioner, who is married daughter for compassionate appointment is that though the facts submitted in her affidavit are true, Memo.No.406/1-/A. 1/Admn.ll/2004, dated 20.03.2004 of Finance Department (Admn.ll) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh has clarified that: “Once marriage is performed, a daughter is not dependent on her father/mother even if she is un-employee or her husband is un employee. A married daughter is dependent on her father/mother if she is living with her father/mother only when her husband deserts her, or disappears for years together or dies. In all such cases, the husband should not have left any-property (income to his wife and the married daughter is solely dependent on support provided by father/mother and is an un-employee”. 7. On account of this government memo, the corporation is unable to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment though she is married daughter. Accordingly, a letter dated 13.09.2024 is addressed to the Government seeking further instructions in this regard.” CGR, J. W.P.No.18405of2024 4. Heard Sri Venati Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sateesh Kumar Eerla, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of petitioner is not being considered solely on the ground that the petitioner is married daughter of the deceased employee and by placing reliance on Memo. No.406/10/A.1/Admn.ll/2004, dated 20.03.2004, she is denied compassionate appointment, contended that the aforesaid circular came to be considered by this Court in various judgments and held that the same cannot be an impediment for considering the claim for compassionate appointment. Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Police v. Smt.K.Padmaja^ V. Shashi Kala v. The District Collector, Ananthapuramu^: Smt.Peddisetti Anitha Sree v. State of A.P.^ He Gochipatha Kalyani v. The State of A.P/ and on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. C.N. Apporva Shree^. Opposing the aforesaid contentions, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 - Corporation, contends that petitioner being 6. ’ Order, dated 20.06.2013, in W.P.No. 16242 of 2013 (D.B.) (APHC) ^Oral Order, dated 05.06.2018, in W.P No.41931 of 2017 (D.B.) (Common High Court for the State of Telangana and for the State of A.P) ^ Order, dated 20.01.2022, in W.P.No.28931 of 2021 (AP HC) " Order, dated 23.07.2024, in W.P.No.30027 of 2023 (AP HC) ^ Judgment, dt.22.03.2021, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.20166/2021. 7^ 'WW^SEL CGR, J W.P.No.18405 of 2024 married daughter of the deceased employee is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and deserves to be dismissed. The very same issue fell for consideration in Smt.Peddisetti Anitha Sree^, and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court after reviewing 7. various judgments on the aspect, held as follows: “8. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased Government Employee. The family member Certificate dated 10.06.2021 and No-earning Member Certificate dated 26.06.2021 issued by the concerned Tahsildar, Mangalagiri, reveals the status of the petitioner as legal heir of the deceased and her financial status and that the petitioner and her mother are non-earning members, respectively. In the counter-affidavit, there specific denial to the petitioner's pleaded case that her husband is not gainfully employed, except doing stray works and that the petitioner was dependent on her deceased father. A reading of the counter-affidavit would disclose that the petitioner's rejected only on the ground that she is a married daughter and living with her husband and therefore, she is not dependent on her deceased father. Reliance is placed on the Memo dated 20.03.2004 referred to above in this regard. 9. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (SER-A) Department dated 30.10.1991 provided that where the deceased employee does not have any male child but leaves behind him/her, a married daughter and unmarried daughter, the choice of selecting one of them for appointment under the Social Security scheme shall be left to the spouse of the deceased. Thereafter, the Government vide G,O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999, 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 compassionate appointment, provided she dependent on the deceased Government employee and subject to satisfying the conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time. 10. The above said Government Order dated 30.07.1999 and subsequent memo dated 20.03.2004 were considered by the IS no case was minor IS CGR, J W.P.No.18405of2024 * Hon'ble Division Bench in K.Padmaja's case referred to supra. The Hon'ble Division Bench while dealing with the Writ Petition filed by the Department against the orders passed by the erstwhile A.P.A.T., in O.A.No.6938 of 2012, considered similar contentions advanced and dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the orders in favour of the applicant for compassionate appointment. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench, inter alia, opined that even if the applicant is residing in a separate house, that by itself is not ground to reject the claim of the appointment. The Hon'ble Division Bench also held that merely because family pension is paid to the wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to deprive the benefit of compassionate appointment under the scheme notified by the Government for the children of the deceased who dies in harness. 11. In view of the above legal position, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be upheld and the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are liable to be rejected. APSRTC's case vide W.P.No.10340 of 2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court had extensively dealt with the matters pertaining to compassionate appointments visa-a-vis the claims of the married daughters and allowed the Writ Petition, inter alia, holding as follows: "41. In the present case the deceased employee left behind his wife and the petitioner only. There brothers or sisters to the petitioner only. There brothers or sisters to the petitioner. The claim of the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment rejected. Now after demise of her father, it is the responsibility cast upon the petitioner to take care of her old aged and widow mother, as she is the only daughter to her parents and there is nobody to take care of her mother for her remaining life. Due to this reason also, the case of the petitioner has to be considered, besides, the petitioner and her husband not having any permanent source of income for their survival. 42. If the petitioner, who has to take care of her widowed mother, is not given compassionate appointment, the whole family will be pushed to indigenous condition and to penury and the core aim and object of the compassionate appointment scheme will be defeated. As such, this Court hold that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment under the "Bread Winner Scheme". are no are no was CGR, J. W.P.No. 18405 of 2024 Above referred judgments, in the considered opinion of this Court applies to the facts of the present case. r 13. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in N.C.Santosh case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with compassionate appointments as provided in Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1996. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment inter alia, opined that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The.said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. / 14. It may not be out of place here to refer to a judgment in Bhuvaneswari v. Puranik (2020 SCC Online Kar 3397). The learned Judge 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 alone continue to be the part of the family." As the objection raised by the respondents with reference to 8. Government Memo. No.406/10/A.1/Admn.ll/2004, dated 20.03.2004 has been negatived by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, respectfully following the same, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. CGR, J. W.P.No.18405 of 2024 miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if As a sequel any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA assistant regi^rar //TRUE COPY// ION OFFICER SE To, 1. The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Tourism Deveiopment th Floor, Stallion Buildings .Autonagar, Vijayawada, Corporation, 5 Krishna District. 2. The Executive Director (Adm), The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation, S'" Floor Stallion Buildings, Autonagar Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Special Chief Secretary, Tourism and Culture, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District. 4. One CC to Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Sateesh Kumar Eerla, SC for AP Tourisam Development Corporation [OPUC] 6. Two CC’s to GP for Tourism, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED: 19/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.18405 of 2024 r. X 2 8 MAR 2025 ^ & . Current decwon ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS