Abdul Chandini vs The State Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 4957 AP

         HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

              WRIT PETITION No.23305 of 2022

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

".... to issue Writ or Order more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Govt. Memo No.9377(P)/Ser.III/A1/2017 dt.04.09.2018 and its connected Collector Ref.No.A6/Camp.No.300921/2020 dt.22.04.2021 refusing petitioner's claim for providing employment under compassionate grounds on the pretext she was married daughter despite it was settled law that married daughter is also eligible, and set aside the same is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, and contrary to the clarification issued in Govt.Memo.No 116417/SER.A/2003-1 dt.08.10.2003 read with dicta laid down in Judgment dt.26.02.2021 in W.P.No.10340/2014 Judgment dt.04.01.2022 in W.P.No.30071/2021 and Judgment dt.04.10.2021 in W A No 294/2021 and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to the compassionate appointment even married daughter by taking into consideration a divorced daughter in any suitable post with all consequential benefits and pass ....."

2. The brief facts of the case are that, Mr.Abdul Nowshad,

who is the father of the petitioner, has expired on 25.05.2015,

while working as Office Subordinate at District Police Office,

Kakinada, leaving behind his wife and the petitioner. Consequent

VS,J wp_23305_2022

to the death of her father, her mother Smt.Abdul Basheer made

an application on 01.12.2015 for providing a compassionate

appointment to the petitioner. Even though a proposal was

forwarded to the Nodal Officer i.e. District Collector, by the

Department, vide letter dated 06.11.2016, no order was received.

Therefore, the petitioner and her mother filed O.A.No.2068 of

2018 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, wherein interim

order was granted directing the authorities to consider the case of

the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Pursuant to the

above interim orders, the concerned authorities rejected the

request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide

impugned Govt. Memo dated 04.09.2018 on the ground that the

petitioner is a married daughter.

Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated

29.06.2020 requesting to reconsider her case stating that her

mother was dependent on her and that she is a divorced

daughter. As no order was received, she filed W.P.No.4626 of

2021 which has been disposed on 25.02.2021 directing the

authorities to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner.

Pursuant to the above said order of this Court, the respondents

passed order dated 22.04.2021 rejecting the case of the petitioner

VS,J wp_23305_2022

on the ground that she was a married daughter, which is under

challenge before this Court.

It is further contended that, on consideration of the

representation made by Non-Gazetted Officers Association the

State Government issued clarification in its

Memo.No.116417/SER.A/2003-1 dated 08.10.2003 that married

daughter is also entitled to compassionate appointment. But the

claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been

rejected only on the ground that she was a married daughter

erroneously relying upon Govt. Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn..II /

2004 dated 20.03.2004, wherein it is stated as follows:

"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 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 the support provided by her father/mother and is an un-employee"

Under similar circumstances, where the request made by a

married daughter for compassionate appointment was rejected

relying upon the Memo dated 20.03.2004, the validity of the

same has been examined by this Court in W.P.No.30071 of 2021

VS,J wp_23305_2022

and passed an elaborate order dated 04.01.2021. While

discussing various judgments, this Court allowed the said writ

petition directing the respondents therein to consider the case of

the petitioner therein for compassionate appointment in any

suitable post.

It is further contended that the respondents cannot reject

compassion appointment to the petitioner on the ground that she

was a married daughter, but as per Memo dated 08.10.2003 she

is eligible for compassionate appointment as she was a divorced

daughter. Further, the mother of the petitioner is dependent on

her. Hence, viewed from any angle the impugned orders passed

by the respondents are illegal, irrational, unfair and invidious

discrimination besides being violation of articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India.

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed counter contending that in

consequence to the G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999,

Government has issued clarification vide Govt.Memo.No.406/

10/A.1/Admn.II/2004, dated 20.03.2004 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

VS,J wp_23305_2022

living with her father/mother 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 the support

provided by her father/mother and is an un-employee. Even

though, the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the

Director General of Police, A.P., Mangalagiri vide letter

C.No.9453/A/2015, dated 31.05.2015 seeking clarification for

appointment under compassionate grounds and in turn, the said

proposal was forwarded to the Principal Secretary to Government

Home(Legal-III) Department, Andhra Pradesh requesting to

consider on humanitarian grounds in relaxation of Rules in

G.O.Ms.No.612, GA(Ser-A) Department dated:30.10.1991 and

above circular. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home

(Ser-III) Department vide Memo.9377(P)/Ser-III/A1/2017, dated

04.09.2018 informed that, after examination, the request of the

petitioner was rejected. In compliance to the order of the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.4626 of 2021,

dated 25.02.2021 and in compliance to the APAT in O.A.

No.2068 of 2018, dated 20.09.2018, the Collector and District

Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada (Nodal Officer) has

VS,J wp_23305_2022

rejected the plea of the petitioner vide proceedings

Ref:A6/Comp.No.300921/2020, dated 22.04.2021.

It is specifically contended by the respondents that, the

petitioner herein was not divorced daughter at the time of death

of Govt. employee. As per the copy of KHULA CERTIFICATE

(Divorce certificate) provided by the petitioner, the divorce was

effected on 20.06.2020 i.e. after lapse of nearly 5 years from the

death of deceased Government Employee. It clearly appears that,

the petitioner is filing petitions in various judiciary agencies with

malafide intention to get Government job on the pretext of

divorced married daughter.

It is further contended that as the mother of the petitioner

is drawing family pension, the question of dependency on the

petitioner does not arise and requested to dismiss the writ

petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Services-I.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

respondents rejected the request of the petitioner relying on the

Memo dated 20.03.2004, which is not sustainable in the light of

the orders of Hon'ble Division Bench in "Commissioner of Police

VS,J wp_23305_2022

and Others Vs. K.Padmaja1" and W.P.No.3017 of 2020 dated

11.12.2020, W.P.No.17548 of 2019 dated 15.12.2020 etc., as also

a judgment of learned Single Judge of High Court of Karnataka in

"Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik v. State of Karanataka2" and

urges that the Writ Petition be allowed by setting aside the

proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition.

There is no dispute that the petitioner is daughter of the

deceased Government employee. The petitioner is a divorced

daughter as she obtained divorce on 26.06.2020. The said crucial

aspect was not considered by the respondents and by simply

referring to Memo dated 20.03.2004, the case of the petitioner

was rejected on the premise that she is a married daughter. The

said rejection exhibits non application of mind to the relevant

aspects and not sustainable on that sole ground.

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

minor daughter, the choice of selecting one of them for

appointment under the Social Security scheme shall be left to the

2013 (4) ALT 501

2020 SCC Online Karnataka 3397

VS,J wp_23305_2022

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 is

dependent on the deceased Government employee and subject to

satisfying the conditions and instructions issued on the scheme

from time to time.

The above said Government Order dated 30.07.1999 and

subsequent memo dated 20.03.2004 were considered by the

Hon'ble Division Bench in K.Padmaja's case (referred 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

VS,J wp_23305_2022

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.

It may not be out of place here to refer to the judgment in

Bhuvaneswari V.Puranik's case (referred surpa). 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."

Further, 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

VS,J wp_23305_2022

the policy for compassionate appointment is to provide financial

support to the family of the deceased employee, who left the

dependents in distress and penury. The core aim of the object of

providing compassionate appointment is to relief the family from

financial sufferings being faced for the sudden demise of the

Bread Winner of the family. The sufferings being faced by the

dependents of the deceased employee for sudden demise of the

Bread Winner could be solved for some extent by providing

compassionate appointment to the one of the dependents of the

deceased employee to look after the family.

The Government vide Memo No.116417/SER.A/2003-1

dated 08.10.2003, the Government has given clarification, which

is as follows:

"It is clarified that the policy of the Government is to provide compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased Government employees to help the family in distress and accordingly if the deceased government employee was having more than one dependent married daughter and when the spouse of the deceased Government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, one of the dependent married daughters may be considered for compassionate appointment, subject to eligibility as per the scheme of compassionate appointment."

      It   is    stated    by    the      Government      in    the     Memo

No.406/10/A.1/Admn.II/2004             dated    20.03.2004,      that   once

marriage is performed, daughter is not dependent on her

VS,J wp_23305_2022

father/mother, even if she is unemployee or her husband is

unemployee and that a married daughter is dependent on her

parents, if she is living with them when her husband deserts her

or disappears for years together or dies.

In the present case, as on the date of rejection of request of

the petitioner, the petitioner is a divorced woman, to substantiate

the same, the petitioner produced "Khula Certificate" dated

26.06.2020 issued by Government Quazi S.K.Ghouse Mohiuddin

Habibi.

In the present case, the deceased employee left behind his

wife and the petitioner only. There are no brothers or sisters to

the petitioner. 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, as the petitioner is a divorced daughter.

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

VS,J wp_23305_2022

scheme will be defeated. Taking into consideration of the fact

that the petitioner is the only daughter to their parents, and

dependent on their parents as she is a divorced woman and there

is none to take care of her mother as well as herself, this court

holds that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate

appointment.

The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Memo

impugned Govt. Memo No.9377(P)/Ser.III/A1/2017 dated

04.09.2018 and its connected proceedings of the Collector

Ref.No.A6/Camp.No.300921/2020 dated 22.04.2021 respectively

are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case

of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable

post, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ

Petition shall stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

13.10.2023 Ksp