1

2024:APHC:34957

*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+WRIT PETITION No.28552 of 2021

Between:

# Baghavathula Bala Tripura Sundari,

W/o. late Bhagavathula Ramalinga Sastry

… Petitioners

And

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its

Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati & 4 others.
…. Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 13.09.2024

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law

Reporters/Journals
- Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair

copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -

___________________________________

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

 2
2024:APHC:34957

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+WRIT PETITION No.28552 of 2021

% 13.09.2024

Between:

# Baghavathula Bala Tripura Sundari,

W/o. late Bhagavathula Ramalinga Sastry

… Petitioners

And

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its

Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati & 4 others.
…. Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Chakravarthy P V S K

Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Services IV

AGP Services-III
Sri G., Srinivasulu Reddy, SC for ZPP MPP
<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. Indiankanoon.org/doc/185387917
2. 2021(1)AKR 444
3. 2020 SCC OnLine HP 2125
4. 2016 (1) ADJ 21(DB)
5. 2019(3) STC 570 (Uttarkhand)+(2019)2 UPLB EC1
6. (1979) 4 SCC 260
7. (2014) 5 Mah LJ 543
8. 2013 SCC OnLine BOM 1549(DB)
9. 2013(4) ALT 501 (DB)
10. 2019(3)ALD 338 (DB)
 3
2024:APHC:34957
APHC010446592021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 28552/2021

Between:

Baghavathula Bala Tripura Sundari ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES IV

2. GP FOR SERVICES III (AP)

3. G SRINIVASULU REDDY

4. G SRINIVASULA REDDY (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GP SERVICES)

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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the
Memo in Rc.No.2336/2021/A3, dated .09.2021 as unconstitutional and against the Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, and consequently directing the respondents No.3 to 5 to consider the petitioner’s
daughter for compassionate appointment and pass such other order or orders……”

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband Sri

Bhagavathula Ramalinga Sastry died on 30-04-2021 while working as

 4
2024:APHC:34957

School Assistant (Telugu) in Zilla Parishad High School, Vanapamula

village, Pedaparapudi Mandal. They blessed with only one daughter by

name Ms. Indira, she completed her B.Sc degree in the year 2015 from

Krishna University, and during the life time of petitioner‟s husband Sri.

Bhagavathula Ramalinga Sastry, they performed their daughter's

marriage on 10-12-2018. After demise of petitioner‟s husband, she

made an application to the respondents requesting to provide

compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter on the basis of

her qualification to the respondent No.3, who in turn, forwarded the

application to the 4th respondent for taking necessary action in view of a

Government circular in memo No. 35252/Ser.G/A1/2011-1. But no

action has been taken. Thereafter, the petitioner made another

representation to the 4th and 5th respondents on 29-07-2021 for the

same relief, but the same was also rejected by the 5th respondent vide

R.c.No.2236/2021/A3, dated 14-08-2021. Again the petitioner made

another application, dated 20-09-2021 clarifying the confusion of the 5th

respondent stating that the petitioner is seeking only for her daughter's

compassionate appointment as she is the only one child to them and

that they have no other children. The 5th respondent again refused her

request vide Rc.No. 2236/2021/A3, dt: -09-2021. Questioning the

same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. While

denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the

 5
2024:APHC:34957

petitioner‟s husband was worked as School Assistant in Zilla Praja

Parishad High School, Vanapamula, while he was working in Z.P.H.

School Vanapamula died on 30.04.2021. After demise of her husband

the petitioner made a representation on 29.07.2021 seeking

compassionate appointment to her married daughter. It is submitted that

the petitioner daughter was married and living away from the family of

deceased employee. In view of fact that the petitioner daughter was

married and not dependent upon the deceased family, and in this

connection, the petitioner‟s request has been rejected vide proceedings

in R.C.No.2236/2021/A3, dt. 14.08.2021 by following the instructions

issued by the Government vide 406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004, Fin (Admn.II)

Dated: 20.03.2004. Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004, dated

26.03.2004. It is further stated that the petitioner made another

representation dated 20.08.2021 to the 4th respondent requested to

consider her daughter case for compassionate appointment. It is

submitted that the Government had issued following instructions vide

Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004, Fin (Admn.II) Dated: 20.03.2004

considering married daughter for compassionate appointment. In the

present case, the petitioner daughter was married to one Sri Kota Phani

Raj Raghavendra and living with him and not dependent upon the

deceased family. Hence she is not eligible for compassionate

appointment as the Memo dated 20.03.2004. Therefore, the action of

 6
2024:APHC:34957

this respondent is quite legal and valid. Hence, prayed to dismiss the

writ petition.

4. Heard Sri P.V.S. K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III

and Sri G.Srinivasula Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP, MPP

appearing for the respondents.

5. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while

reiterating the averments made in the petition, 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 her daughter is married

daughter is illegal, unjust and contrary to the object of scheme of

compassionate appointment and hence learned counsel requests this

Court to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the

petitioner for appointment of her daughter on compassionate

appointment.

6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court

 7
2024:APHC:34957

reported in Ch. Damayanthi vs. APSRTC1, and requests this Court to

pass similar order in the present writ petition also.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents would submit that consequent to the death of husband of

the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application seeking

appointment of her daughter under compassionate grounds. He mainly

submits that the married daughters are not entitled for employment

under the scheme and the G.O.Ms.No.350, dated 30.07.1999 is not

applicable to the case of the petitioner, as it was not opted by the

respondents and it is not in purview of G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2013.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

8. 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.

1
Indiankanoon.org/doc/185387917
 8
2024:APHC:34957

9. 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.

(i) x x x x

(ii) x x x x

(iii) When 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 .

10. 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.

11. 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
 9
2024:APHC:34957

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 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

 10
2024:APHC:34957

14. “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.

15. This Court can visualize this aspect in a different perceptive.

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

(Act No.56 of 2007) is enacted by Parliament to provide for more

effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and

Senior Citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution. The

relevant provisions of the said Act are as extracted hereunder for better

appreciation of the present case:

2. Definitions:

(a) “Children” includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter but does not include a minor;

(d) “Parent” means father or mother whether biological, adoptive or step father or step mother, as
the case may be, whether or not the father or the mother is a senior citizen;

4. Maintenance of parents and senior citizens.- (1) A senior citizen including parent who is unable to
maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an
application under Section 5 in case of –

(3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent
either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.
 11
2024:APHC:34957

16. The Parliament while enacting the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, defined the “children” as son,

daughter, grandson and grand-daughter. The Parliament never intended

to interpret or differentiate the daughter as married daughter or

unmarried daughter. The obligation was cast upon the children to

maintain their parents to cater the needs of such parent either father or

mother or both to lead a normal life.

17. 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 are married or unmarried in discharging their

responsibilities and obligations towards their parents.

18. This Court has fortified the judgments rendered by various High

Courts, which are extracted as hereunder:

19. In Smt.Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik vs The State of Karnataka

and others2, the High Court of Karnataka while holding the exclusion of

married daughters from the ambit of expression „family‟ in Rule

2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services

2
2021 (1) AKR 444
 12
2024:APHC:34957

(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 is illegal and

unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution

observed as extracted hereunder:

14.4. In all the illustrations the offer of appointment or its denial is on the basis of gender as the
sons of a deceased Government servant may well be married but are not denied appointment on the
ground of marriage. If the daughters of a Government servant are married as marriage is a social
commitment of a parent and in furtherance of such social commitment the daughter is given in marriage
becomes ineligible to seek appointment in terms of the Rules. Therefore, the Rules insofar as it creates
division of the same object of appointment on the basis of gender by granting appointment to a son
without any qualification and denying the same to a daughter with the qualification of “marriage” cannot
but be held to be discriminatory. Marriage does not determine the continuance of the relationship of a
child with the parent, whether son or a daughter. Son continues to be a son both before and after
marriage and a daughter also should continue to be a daughter both before and after marriage. This
relationship does not get effaced by the fact of marriage, as marriage does not severe the relationship of
the daughter with the parent. These relationships are neither governed nor defined by marital status.
This notion on which the Rule is framed cannot answer the tests of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution
of India.

15.5. The Rule that is called in question and has fallen for interpretation, without a shadow of a
doubt is discriminatory as the words “unmarried” permeates through the entire fabric of Rule 2 and 3 as
extracted hereinabove to deny appointment to a married daughter. If the Rule is left as it is, in view of my
preceding analysis, would create a discrimination on the basis of gender. 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
cease 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. Therefore, the Rule which becomes violative of Articles 14, 15 on its
interpretation will have to be struck down as unconstitutional as excluding the daughters purely on the
basis of marriage will constitute an impermissible discrimination which is invidious and be violative of
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

20. In Mamata Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others3 ,

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 practicing an act of hostile discrimination 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
alter or severe her relation with her parents. If, the State even draws a thin line of distinction based on
gender, then that line has to withstand the test of Articles 15 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. In the instant case, the
classificatory distinction, as drawn by the respondents, debarring the married daughter is, could not
withstand the test of Article 15 of the Constitution of India.

3
2020 SCC OnLine HP 2125
 13
2024:APHC:34957

12. Another point, which we need to delve on, is whether with the marriage of a daughter, her
dependency on her parents ceases or it remains unaffected? The daughters have all the rights, which
are available to sons, be it succession, right(s) in property etc. and these rights don't cease with
marriage of a daughter and remain alive even after marriage. In fact, marriage is a social circumstance
and it does not affect the dependency, thus marriage cannot be regarded as a reasonable and
acceptable ground to determine dependency. For dependency (herein financial dependency), many
facets have to be looked into, one of them is a situation where a son is not in need of compassionate
appointment, but a married daughter is in need of the same, then the State cannot shrug off from its
responsibility, rather duty, to provide compassionate appointment to her and the State cannot turn its
back to a daughter, on unacceptable ground that she is married, who looks towards the State with the
eyes of hope.

21. In Smt. Vimla Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and

others4, the High Court of Allahabad observed as hereunder:

"The issue before the Court is whether marriage is a social circumstance which is relevant in
defining the ambit of the expression "family" and whether the fact that a daughter is married can
constitutionally be a permissible ground to deny her the benefit of compassionate appointment. The
matter can be looked at from a variety of perspectives. Implicit in the definition which has been adopted
by the state in Rule 2 (c) is an assumption that while a son continues to be a member of the family and
that upon marriage, he does not cease to be a part of the family of his father, a daughter upon marriage
ceases to be a part of the family of her father. It is discriminatory and constitutionally impermissible for
the State to make that assumption and to use marriage as a rationale for practicing an act of hostile
discrimination by denying benefits to a daughter when equivalent benefits are granted to a son in terms
of the compassionate appointment. Marriage does not determine the continuance of the relationship of a
child, whether a son or a daughter, with the parents. A son continues to be a son both before and after
marriage. A daughter continues to a daughter. This relationship is not effaced either in fact or in law
upon marriage. Marriage does not bring about a severance of the relationship between, a father and
mother and their son or between parents and their daughter. These relationship are not governed or
defined by marital status. The state has based its defence in its reply and the foundation of the exclusion
on a paternalistic notion of the role and status of a woman. These patriarchal notions must answer the
test of the guarantee of equality under Article 14 and must be held answerable to the recognition of
gender identity under Article 15.

The stand which has been taken by the state in the counter affidavit proceeds on a paternalistic
notion of the position of a woman in our society and particularly of the position of a daughter after
marriage. The affidavit postulates that after marriage, a daughter becomes a member of the family of her
husband and the responsibility of her maintenance solely lies upon her husband. The second basis
which has been indicated in the affidavit is that in Hindu Law, a married daughter cannot be considered
as dependent of her father or a dependent of a joint Hindu Family. The assumption that after marriage, a
daughter cannot be said to be a member of the family of her father or that she ceases to be dependent
on her father irrespective of social circumstances cannot be countenanced. Our society is governed by
constitutional principles. Marriage cannot be regarded as a justifiable ground to define and exclude from
who constitutes a member of the family when the state has adopted a social welfare policy which is
grounded on dependency. The test in matter of compassionate appointment is a test of dependency with
defined relationships. There are situations where a son of the deceased government servant may not be
in need of compassionate appointment because the economic and financial position of the family of the
deceased are not such as to require the grant of compassionate appointment on a preferential basis. But
the dependency or a lack of dependency is a matter which is not determined a priori on the basis of
whether or not the son is married. Similarly, whether or not a daughter of a deceased should be granted
compassionate appointment has to be defined with reference to whether, on a consideration of all
relevant facts and circumstances, she was dependent on the deceased government servant. Excluding
daughters purely on the ground of marriage would constitute and impermissible discrimination 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

4
2016(1) ADJ 21 (DB
 14
2024:APHC:34957

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 rule 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 ambit 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.""

22. 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 observed 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 married 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 a 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 all
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 all 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.

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

15. In fact, this Court in the case of R.Govindammal Vs. Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and
Nutritious Meal Programme Department, Chennai in 2015 (5) CTC 344 has directed the first respondent
to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, is she is otherwise eligible, without reference to
marriage. In the said order, the learned Judge of this Court issued a direction to the Chief Secretary of
the Tamil Nadu Government, to suitably modify the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.165, Labour and
Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 in the light of the observations made above.
 15
2024:APHC:34957

16. The learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondent Mr.R.Vijayakumar, argued that
the impugned order dated NIL was passed in accordance with the above Government Orders. Since, the
Government Order is restricted to give employment to the married daughters and hence, he sustained
the impugned order.

17. In my considered opinion and by going through the above judgments and on perusing the
impugned order passed by the respondent it is unfortunate to note here that the respondent without
considering the pathetic situation of the petitioner's case that the elder sister viz., M.Manjula, is a
mentally retarded person and she ought to have been taken care of by her family members, the
respondent has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without mentioning any other
ground except the ground of married daughter. All the above cases cited supra has rightly directed the
respondent authorities to provide compassionate appointment without reference to the marriage of the
petitioner. In the present case also, the above judgment is squarely applicable." (emphasis supplied)

18. The above said decisions apply on all fours to the case on hand. In the instant case, the
deceased Government servant has no male issue. If the other legal heirs have given no objection to the
petitioner being granted appointment on compassionate grounds, it cannot be stated that the petitioner is
not entitled to appointment merely because she is r married. That apart, Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act places equal responsibility on both the son and daughter to take care of
their parents.

19. There can be no artificial classification between married son and married daughter only on the
basis of sex, as the same would tantamount to gender discrimination. If married son is considered to be
a part of the family, this Court is at a loss to understand as to why a married daughter should not be
included in the definition of family.

20. Son and daughter are supposed to take care of the parents at the old age. The married son is to
be treated at part with the unmarried daughter. No considering the married daughter for compassionate
appointment merely on the basis of marriage is patently arbitrary and unreasonable.

23. In Udham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. &

another vs. Anjula Singh and others5, 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 the 1974 Rules
and the note below Regulation 104 of the 1975 Regulations, thereby denying her the opportunity of
being considered 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 to fall within the 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.”

24. In C.B. Muthamma vs. Union of India6, the Hon'ble Apex Court at

para Nos.6 and 7 observed as extracted hereunder:

6. At the first blush this rule is in defiance of Article

16. If a married man has a right, a married 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
indivisible, 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

5
2019(3) STC 570 (Uttarakhand) = (2019) 2 UPLB EC1
6
(1979) 4 SCC 260
 16
2024:APHC:34957

between Constitution in the book and law in action. And if the executive as the surrogate of Parliament,
makes rules in the teeth of Part III especially when high political office, even 2019(3) STC 570
(Uttarakhand) = (2019) 2 UPLB EC1 (1979) 4 SCC 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
all situations and do not exclude the 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 compel selectivity. But save where the differentiation is demonstrable, the rule of equality must
govern. This creed of our Constitution has at last told on our governmental mentation, perhaps partly
pressured by the pendency of 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.

25. In Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs. State of Maharashtra7, 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
considered as a member of the "family" a deceased retail license holder is violative of the provisions of
the Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Minister, Food and Civil
Supplies 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:

(a) The Government Resolutions/Circulars dated 22-12-1997, 16-8-2001,

10-12-2003 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;

26. In Sou.Swara Sachin Kulkarni (Kumari Deepa Ashok Kulkarni) vs.

The Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle and

another8, the Bombay High Court held at para No.2 as extracted hereunder:

2. The petitioner claims that her name has been deleted only because she is married. A married daughter could
not have 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
petition. Mr. Kulkarni, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the facts in this case are peculiar. The
deceased only had daughters. Both daughters are married.

The second daughter is not interested in the job. The petitioner is interested in the job because she is supporting
her widowed mother. The mother has nobody to look forward to except the petitioner - daughter. The petitioner
has asserted that even after her marriage she is looking after her mother in her old age. In such circumstances,
the deletion of her name from the list is violative of the constitutional mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.

7
(2014) 5 Mah LJ 543
8
2013 SCC OnLine BOM 1549 (DB)
 17
2024:APHC:34957

27. In Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City and others vs. K.

Padmaja9, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh while considering an identical

issue that respondent- applicant in the said case was married daughter and

she failed to produce any proof to show that she was staying with the

deceased father at the time of his death and she was residing in a separate

house along with her husband and was eking her livelihood by sewing the

garments, and despite that, this Court held as under:

"Even if the applicant is residing in a separate house that by itself, is not a ground to reject the claim of
appointment. So far as the income of the applicant is concerned, it is proved that she is not having any
independent income to live on her own and she is also taking care of the mother (widow of the deceased
employee). No valid reasons are recorded by the authorities to reject the claim of the applicant for
compassionate appointment."

28. In V. Shashi Kala vs. District Collector, Anantapuramu and

others10 , the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as extracted hereunder:

"In the present case, undisputedly the petitioner is the elder daughter of the deceased and she along
with her husband is staying at the place of the deceased even after her marriage. In the society, there
are two types of families - one is wealthy and the other is poor. The wealthy people ask their daughters
after marriage either to stay with them or to stay separately by making necessary arrangements. In the
second category, the daughters continue to stay with their parents depending upon their income even
after their marriage when they do not have source of income. The present case is of the second
category."

29. This Court gone through the decisions relied by the learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. This Court, with great

respect, express its acceptance towards the proposition of law laid down in

those judgments. But, those judgments are not applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case on hand.

30. In the present case the deceased employee left behind his wife,

who is the petitioner herein. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate

9
2013(4) ALT 501 (D.B)
10
2019(3)ALD 338 (DB)
 18
2024:APHC:34957

appointment of her daughter was rejected. Now after demise of her husband,

it is the responsibility cast upon the petitioner to take care of her children. Due

to this reason also, the case of the petitioner has to be considered. If the

compassionate appointment is not given to her daughter, the core aim and

object of the compassionate appointment scheme will be defeated. As such,

this court holds that the claim of the petitioner for appointment of her daughter

on compassionate appointment is justified.

31. In view of the foregoing reasons and in view of the decisions of

Hon‟ble Apex Court referred to above, this Court deems fit to allow the present

writ petition with the following directions;

(i) The impugned Memo in Rc.No.2236/2021/A3, dated .09.2021 issued by

the respondent No.5 is hereby set aside.

(ii) The respondents No.3 to 5 are directed to consider the case of the
petitioner‟s daughter for compassionate appointment as per the then
extant policy. The authorities shall be entitled to scrutinize whether the
application for compassionate appointment fulfils all other requirements in
accordance with law. The process of consideration of the application
shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.

32. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. There shall be no order

as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.

______________________________

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : 13 -09-2024

Gvl
 19
2024:APHC:34957

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.28552 of 2021

Date : 13.09.2024

Gvl
20
2024:APHC:34957