APHC010039852024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 129/2024 Between: 1. THE STATE OF AP., and 2 Others. ...APPELLANT AND 1. D. SUVARTHAMMA, ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SODUM ANVESHA The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.129 of 2024 JUDGMENT: ((Per Hon’ble Sri A. Hari Haranadha Sarma) Introductory:- This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2023 in W.P.No.30666 of 2022. Appellants are the unsuccessful respondents and the respondent herein is the Writ Petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Case of the Writ Petitioner:- 3. [i] One D.Danamma is working as sweeper in the office of the 3rd respondent- the Conservator of Forests, Kurnool Circle, Kurnool is the mother of Writ Petitioner. Said Danamma passed away on 22.08.2016 while in service, leaving two daughters as her legal heirs and her husband pre-deceased her. [ii] The Writ Petitioner is the elder daughter and one Mariyamma is the younger. The Writ Petitioner and her husband, (one G.Sudhakar) are unemployees and dependents of her mother. The petitioner made an application dated 18.08.2017 to consider her for appointing in any suitable job under compassionate grounds, enclosing Death Certificate, Family 3 Certificate, No-earning Member Certificate, Financial Status Certificate and Dependency Certificate etc.. [iii] Respondent No.3 sought information as to her dependency, the petitioner submitted letter dated 14.9.2021 claiming eligibility in terms of G.O.No.350 dated 30.7.1999 being elder daughter and also entitlement of marriage daughter’s for compassionate appointment on par with married sons relying on the judgment of High Court of A.P. in Ch.Damayanthi V.s APSRTC vide W.P.No.10340 of 2014. [iv] 3rd respondent sought clarification from the District Collector as to eligibility of Writ Petitioner and Writ Petitioner under letter dated 23.12.2021 informed to take necessary action as per rules and also clarification from the head of the Department. Basing on the same, the 3rd respondent sought clarification from the 2nd respondent-head of the Department. [v] No objection of the sister of the Writ Petitioner was also submitted. The 2nd respondent under instructions dated 9.8.2022 directed the 3rd respondent to take steps in accordance with rules in force. The 3rd respondent did not take proper action. Hence, the Writ Petitioner prayed for necessary reliefs. 4 Contention of the respondent-before the learned Single Judge: 4. [i] As per G.O.Ms.No.350, GAD Dept., dated 30.07.1999 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 can be considered for compassionate appointment, provided she is dependent on the deceased Government Employee, and subject to satisfying the other conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time. [ii] As per Government Memo No.406/2010/A1/Adm.II/2004, Fin(Admn.II), dated 20.03.2004, a married daughter is not dependent on her father/mother, even if she is an unemployee or her husband is unemployed. A married daughter is dependent on her father/mother, if she is living with her father/mother, when her husband deserts her or disappears for years together or dies. [iii] Instructions were issued to the Divisional Forest Officer, Nandyal Vide Rc.No.3326/2017/M1, dt.05.10.2021 to examine the case of the Writ Petitioner, who is married daughter of late Danamma for providing compassionate appointment duly consulting the District Collector, Kurnool in the matter. In response to the instructions issued the D.F.O., Nandyal reported that he has addressed the District Collector, Kurnool seeking clarification and the District Collector, Kurnool vide Rc.No.REV- 5 ASEC/14/2021-SA (A7)-COLLKRNL., dated 23.12.2021 informed to take necessary action as per the rules in force and also clarification, if any, from the concerned Head of the Department. Hence, a letter was addressed to the PCCF&HoFF., A.P. Guntur with a request to issue necessary clarification vide C.F., Kurnool Rc.No.3326//2017/M1, dt.20.06.2022 and in response to the letter addressed the PCCF &HoFF, A.P., Guntur vide Ref.No.622/2022/HR-1, dated 09.08.2022 issued instructions to take necessary action as per rules. Findings of the learned MACT:- 5. Learned single judge, allowed the Writ Petition considering the observations of this Court vide Pulipati (Badugu) Samadhanam Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh1, in K.Vijaya Kumari Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh2 and Ulavapati Kalpana Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, and the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.10340 of 2014 in Ch.Damayanthi Vs. APSRTC3 [rendered by one of us while sitting single] found that if the marital status of a son does not make any difference in Law as to his entitlement for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the marital status of the daughter should not make difference and 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. Accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition, directing to consider the case of the petitioner for 1 2022 SCC Online AP 1491=MANU/AP/0071/2022 2 2021 SCC Online AP 1796 3 2021(2)ALD 582 6 compassionate appointment in suitable posts within a period of three (3) months. Contentions in the appeal:- For the appellants: 6. [i] The Writ Petitioner is the married daughter, she is not satisfying the requirements of the Government Memo. Her dependency on the deceased is the prime time factor and objective of providing compassionate appointment is to safeguard the interest of the spouse of the deceased employee. In the present case, the husband of the deceased employee- Danamma, pre-deceased her, and the writ petitioner, being a married daughter, not entitled for compassionate appointment as the married daughter’s appointment on compassionate grounds can be considered only when necessity to protect the spouse of the deceased-employee and on unwillingness or ineligibility of such spouse for appointment, subject to satisfying such other requirements. The writ petitioner being the married daughter, and as spouse of the deceased is not alive, not entitled for compassionate appointment. [ii] Unemployment of either the writ petitioner or her husband is no criteria, as the writ petitioner is a married daughter and spouse of the deceased-employee is no more. [iii] Learned single Judge did not appreciate that the cases referred would not apply to the case on hand, as those are cases where the spouse 7 of the employee, require support of the other legal representatives, who sought of compassionate appointment. [iv] Compassionate appointment is not a bounty but can be considered to those families, who are starving in-harness. Aim and object of the compassionate appointment is to protect the families who are in distress condition. For the Respondent-Writ Petitioner:- 7. The Writ Petitioner though married, she was living with the deceased. Certificate dated 14.06.2021 issued by Tahsildar, Kurnool Urban Mandal is indicating that Suvarthamma (writ petitioner) is unemployee and dependent upon her mother and the said Certificate was issued for getting Family pension. The financial status Certificate is indicting that they are not having any immovable properties. Therefore, all the requirements are satisfied. The dependency is the criteria, but showing one reason or the other, the respondents are denying the appointment. Judgment of the learned Single Judge is well reasoned and does not warrant any interference. Analysis:- 8. Death of Danamma, employee while in service, writ petitioner being one of the daughters, no objection of the other daughter, unemployed status of the writ petitioner and her dependency on the deceased are all not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondents that the writ petitioner has any other employment and that she was not living with the deceased. 8 9. The aim and object of compassionate appointment is to safeguard the interest of the dependents, the dependency need not be confined to spouse, it can extend to (a) spouse, (b) son, (c) daughter, even though married, if she is dependent. 10. In a case where married daughter was not included in breadwinner scheme of APSRTC for considering compassionate appointment and where only unmarried daughters are included after referring to the concerned G.Os., including one G.O.Ms.No.350 GAD dated 13.7.1991 in W.P.No.10340 of 2014 in a case between Ch.Damayanthi Vs. APSRTC, Hyderabad and Others [cited 3 supra], this Court [one of us authored, sitting single] after referring to several judgments held that the object of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to support the family of the deceased-government servant, who dies in harness, when there is no condition for ‘son’, whether he is married or unmarried, such kind of condition in case of daughter, referring only ‘unmarried daughter’ is not correct and even the married daughter stands in the same pedestal. The observations in para 22 to 25 of the said judgment are as follows:- “22) 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 9 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 help the destitute families of the deceased employees, but incorporating such clause in eligibility criteria discriminating the daughters, who are being married is appears to be illegal and unjust. 23) 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. 24) 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. 25) “A child remains a child to parent, whatever be their gender”. A son or a daughter does not cease their relationship with their parents as children upon being married. The relationship of children with their parents cannot be governed by their martial status. The daughters and sons have equivalent rights and duties with respect to their parents. This court has witnessed several instances where the daughters, married or unmarried, have been performing customary rites on the occasion of demise of their parents and carrying the whole burden of the family upon their shoulders.” 11. Further, in a recent case in Canara Bank Vs Ajithkumar G.K. vide Civil Appeal No.255 OF 2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred several 10 judicial precedents particularly principles relating to compassionate appointments, vide para 10 and 11 of the judgment, which are as follows: “10. The policy to appoint a dependant family member of an employee who has died-in-harness or has been medically rendered unfit to perform further job, thereby leaving the family in utter penury, is not of too distant an origin. Going by law reports, the policy seems to have originated during the seventies of the last century and gained momentum in the following decades with this Court laying down guidelines from time to time for grant of compassionate appointment. The rationale for such appointment has been explained in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh4 in the following words: “8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment.” 11. Decisions of this Court on the contours of appointment on compassionate ground are legion and it would be apt for us to consider certain well-settled principles, which have crystallized through precedents into a rule of law. They are (not in sequential but contextual order): a) Appointment on compassionate ground, which is offered on humanitarian grounds, is an exception to the rule of equality in the matter 4 (1997) 8 SCC 85 14 11 of public employment [see General Manager, State Bank of India v Anju Jain145]. b) Compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of rules or instructions [see Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi6]. c) Compassionate appointment is ordinarily offered in two contingencies carved out as exceptions to the general rule, viz. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service [see V. Sivamurthy v. Union of India7]. d) The whole object of granting compassionate employment by an employer being intended to enable the family members of a deceased or an incapacitated employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis, appointments on compassionate ground should be made immediately to redeem the family in distress [see Sushma Gosain v. Union of India8]. e) Since rules relating to compassionate appointment permit a sidedoor entry, the same have to be given strict interpretation [see Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi9]. f) Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants [see SAIL v. Madhusudan Das10]. g) None can claim compassionate appointment by way of inheritance [see State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar11]. h) Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and being an exception, the scheme has to strictly construed 5 (2008) 8 SCC 475 6 (2002) 10 SCC 246 7 (2008) 13 SCC 730 8 (1989) 4 SCC 468 9 (2009) 11 SCC 453 10 (2008) 15 SCC 560 11 (2009) 13 SCC 600 12 and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve [see Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India12]. i) None can claim compassionate appointment, on the occurrence of death/medical incapacitation of the concerned employee (the sole bread earner of the family), as if it were a vested right, and any appointment without considering the financial condition of the family of the deceased is legally impermissible [see Union of India v. Amrita Sinha13]. j) An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over [see Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar14]. k) The object of compassionate employment is not to give a member of a family of the deceased employee a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. Offering compassionate employment as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and making compassionate appointments in posts above Class III and IV is legally impermissible [see Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana15]. l) Indigence of the dependents of the deceased employee is the first precondition to bring the case under the scheme of compassionate appointment. If the element of indigence and the need to provide immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution is taken away from compassionate appointment, it would turn out to be a reservation in favour of the dependents of the employee who died while in service which would directly be in conflict with the ideal of equality guaranteed 12 (2011) 4 SCC 209 13 (2021) 20 SCC 695 14 (2009) 13 SCC 112 15 (1994) 4 SCC 138 13 under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see Union of India v. B. Kishore16]. m)The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion [see I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi17]. n) Satisfaction that the family members have been facing financial distress and that an appointment on compassionate ground may assist them to tide over such distress is not enough; the dependent must fulfil the eligibility criteria for such appointment [see State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari18]. o) There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the applicant becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions [see Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar19]. p) Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as substitute for providing employment assistance. Also, it is only in rare cases and that too if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death/incapacitation, can be considered for appointment upon attaining majority [see Canara Bank (supra)]. q) An appointment on compassionate ground made many years after the death/incapacitation of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to the dependent of the deceased/incapacitated employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [see National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh20]. r) Dependents if gainfully employed cannot be considered [see Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh21]. s) The retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be taken into consideration to determine if the family of the 16 (2011) 13 SCC 131 17 (2007) 6 SCC 162 18 (2012) 9 SCC 545 19 (2000) 7 SCC 192 20 (2007) 2 SCC 481 21 (1998) 5 SCC 452 14 deceased is left in penury. The court cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of “not very well-to-do”. [see General Manager (D and PB) v. Kunti Tiwary (2004) 7 SCC 271]. t) Financial condition of the family of the deceased employee, allegedly in distress or penury, has to be evaluated or else the object of the scheme would stand defeated inasmuch as in such an eventuality, any and every dependent of an employee dying-in harness would claim employment as if public employment is heritable [see Union of India v. Shashank Goswami, Union Bank of India v. M. T. Latheesh , National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Nank Chand and Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja]. u) The terminal benefits, investments, monthly family income including the family pension and income of family from other sources, viz. agricultural land were rightly taken into consideration by the authority to decide whether the family is living in penury. [see Somvir Singh (supra)]. v) The benefits received by widow of deceased employee under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment cannot stand in her way for compassionate appointment. Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with benefits of compassionate appointment. [see Balbir Kaur v. SAIL((2000) 6 SCC 493)] w) The fixation of an income slab is, in fact, a measure which dilutes the element of arbitrariness. While, undoubtedly, the facts of each individual case have to be borne in mind in taking a decision, the fixation of an income slab subserves the purpose of bringing objectivity and uniformity in the process of decision making. [see State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653]. x) Courts cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration [see Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718 ]. y) Courts cannot allow compassionate appointment dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions [see SBI v. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571]. 15 z) An employer cannot be compelled to make an appointment on compassionate ground contrary to its policy [see Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Dharmendra Sharma(2007) 8 SCC 148 ]. 12. The specific dimension projected in the present case is that when spouse of the deceased is not alive, providing compassionate appointment to other legal representatives does not arise. The object of compassionate appointment and the Policy to appoint a dependent of a family member of an employee, who died in harness, is applicable to all the dependents. Restricting its scope to the surviving spouse alone is found to be illegal, particularly where there is no specific restriction in the form of law or particular G.O. is placed. Even if such a G.O. exists, whether it will stand the test of objective of compassionate appointments, is yet another important angle to be kept in view. 13. Some times single parent may be there and there may be dependent children, such son or daughter either married or not married. If he or she is/are dependents on such parent, denying the compassionate appointment to them will not be in tune with the object of compassionate appointment and the ideology behind it. 14. The arguments that the husband of the Danamma/deceased- employee in this case per-deceased her, will have any significance is one question. If it is a case of son of Danamma, seeking employment, whether such objection would operate is a next question? 16 15. The G.O. relied on by the respondents vide G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999, or the subsequent Circular Memos vide Ex.P19 to ExP20, dated 12.8.2003, 08.10.2003 are relating to the issue in respect of married daughter. Can there be any difference in respect of a ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ for considering the candidature as to compassionate appointment is a basic and core constitutional issue. There can be privilege and special provision for woman, giving some benefit, but a provision contemplating some disqualification or discrimination, resulting in disentitlement, does not deserve credit when the same is seen within the constitutional perspective of equity and scope for making special provision for women. 16. (1) Danamma/deceased-employee died on 22.08.2016, application for compassionate appointment made within one year i.e. on 18.8.2017, claiming that the Writ Petitioner is dependent. It is relevant to note that the conditions required that the other younger or elder dependents expressed no objection is complied. (2) The writ petitioner, married daughter is a dependent. There is a Certificate issued by Tahsildar, indicating that she has no-earnings and dependent. (3) The spouse of the deceased shall not be willing or eligible for appointment is also a requirement. When the spouse of the deceased employee predeceased her, unwillingness or ineligibility of the spouse does not arise. 17 17. All the requirements are substantially addressed by the learned Single Judge clearly while upholding the entitlement of the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Order. Hence, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Result and Relief:- 18. This Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. 19. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Dated: .10.2025 Pnr 18 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.129 of 2024 Dt. 29 -10-2025 Pnr