APHC010171952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24905/2025 Between: 1. VAKADA BHAGYALAXMI, W/O LATE JAGANNADHA RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE/WIDOW, R/O 11 STREET, TEKKALI TOWN MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. VAKADA GUNAVATHI, D/O LATE JAGANNADHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC UN STREET, TEKKALI TOWN MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, , (CIVIL SUPPLIES) SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 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 toissue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 24905/2025 VAKADA BHAGYALAXMI, W/O LATE JAGANNADHA RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE/WIDOW, R/O 11 STREET, TEKKALI TOWN MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. VAKADA GUNAVATHI, D/O LATE JAGANNADHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O 11 STREET, TEKKALI TOWN MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. COLLECTOR, , (CIVIL SUPPLIES) SRIKAKULAM THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. THE TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toissue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA VAKADA BHAGYALAXMI, W/O LATE JAGANNADHA RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE/WIDOW, R/O 11-95 GOLLA STREET, TEKKALI TOWN MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. VAKADA GUNAVATHI, D/O LATE JAGANNADHA RAO, AGED R/O 11-95 GOLLA STREET, TEKKALI TOWN MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPT, SECRETARIAT COLLECTOR, , (CIVIL SUPPLIES) SRIKAKULAM THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI DIVISION, THE TAHSILDAR CIVIL SUPPLIES, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toissue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of 2 VS,J W.P.No.24905 of 2025 Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents to appoint the petitioners or eligible family member as F.P. Shop Dealer for shop no.0127112 at D.no.2-4 (ward no.-3) Chinna bazar Tekkali town MandaIjSrikakulam District under compassionate appointment by considering the petitioners Representation dt 7.02.2025 is highly illegal arbitrary violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violation of the principles of natural Justiceand consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners or eligible family members F.P. Shop Dealer for shop no.0127112 at D.no.2-4 (ward no 3)Chinna bazar Tekkali town Mandal.Srikakulam District under compassionate appointment by considering the petitioners Representation dt 7.02.2025 and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 VS,J W.P.No.24905 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition came to be 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 to declare the inaction of the respondents to appoint the petitioners or eligible family member as F.P. Shop Dealer for shop no.0127112 at D.no.2-4 (ward no.3)Chinna bazaar, Tekkali town & MandaI, Srikakulam District, under compassionate appointment by considering the petitioners Representation dt:7.02.2025 is highly, illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violation of the principles of natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners or eligible family members F.P. Shop Dealer for shop no.0127112 at D.no.2-4, (ward no.3) Chinna bazar, Tekkali town & Mandal, Srikakulam District, under compassionate appointment by considering the petitioners Representation dt:7.02.2025 and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The 1st petitioner’s husband and the 2nd petitioner’s father by name Jagannadharao was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for shop No.0127112 at Chinna Bazar, Tekkali Town & Mandal, Srikakulam District, in the year 1989 vide Rc.No.687/89-90 Authorization No.2/TKL/89. 3. While the matter being so, he died on 20.12.2023 by leaving both the petitioners, as the only legal heirs. As such, the 1st petitioner has submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent herein on 07.02.2025, to consider her for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 28.02.2014 and as no orders have been passed on the said representation made by the 1st petitioner, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4 VS,J W.P.No.24905 of 2025 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing the respondents. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has stated that, the 1st petitioner is aged about 55 years and as such, she is not eligible for appointment under compassionate grounds in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 28.02.2014. However, the 2nd petitioner, who is married daughter of late Jagannadharao, is at liberty to submit a representation to the 3rd respondent, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and the same will be considered, in accordance with law. 6. Under similar circumstances, where a married daughter had submitted a representation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 28.02.2014, this Hon’ble Court, in W.P.No.16576 of 2024, at Paragraph Nos.5 to 8 passed the following order: “5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this high Court in W.P.No.28931 of 2021, dated 20.01.2022 held in Smt.Peddisetti Anitha Sree Yenepalli Anitha Sree v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and W.P.No.14734 of 2021 dated 08.04.2022 held in Gochipatha Kalyani v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, wherein the issue under challenge is the appointment of a married daughter on compassionate appointment being rejected by the appointing authorities. In both these decisions, this High Court held that the married daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment, if otherwise eligible. In the 2nd cited supra, paragraph-15 reads as under: 1 Manu/AP/0072/2022 2 2022 SCC OnLine AP 913 5 VS,J W.P.No.24905 of 2025 “… for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the married daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment. The impugned order, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground, only on the ground that the petitioner is married daughter of the deceased, cannot be sustained. The impugned order is therefore quashed…” 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has not disputed the legal preposition in the above said cases. 7. Upon consideration to the settled preposition of law and the similar circumstances of this case being covered in the above cited decisions, this Court is of the view that the application of the petitioner can be considered by the 4th respondent in the light of the above decisions, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs.” 7. In view of the same, instead of keeping the Writ Petition pending, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the 2nd petitioner to submit a representation to the 3rd respondent, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be considered by the 3rd respondent in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 28.02.2014 and as well as the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16576 of 2024, as per which a married daughter is also eligible for appointment under compassionate grounds. The said process shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of representation from the 2nd petitioner. 6 VS,J W.P.No.24905 of 2025 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 16.09.2025 MDP