Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ambati Malleswari vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 February, 2024
[ 3330 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 19384 OF 2016
Between:
1. Ambati Malleswari, W/o Veera Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 31 Years, Occupation: Un-
employed, R/o, Room No. 5, Door No. 8-12, Salla Venkaiah Satram, Srisailam Village and
Mandal, Kurnool District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department,
Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
3. Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy, Devastanam, Srisailam, represented by its Joint
Commissioner And Executive Officer, Srisailam, Kurnool District.
...RESPONDENTS
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 toto issue a Writ, Order or
Direction(s) more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of
the Respondent No. 3 herein in not complying with the directions of the Respondent No. 2 herein
Dated: 11-08-2015 in Rc. No. C1/4469/2015 inspite of the reminder Dated: 22-09-2015 in Rc.
No. C1/4469/2015, and not appointing the Petitioner herein on compassionate grounds in the 3rd
Respondent Temple in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 1357 (Revenue) Endowments Department, Dated:
18-07-2011, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, irrational and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents herein to appoint the Petitioner
herein on compassionate grounds in the 3rd Respondent Temple with all consequential and
attendant benefits, and pass and pass such other orders as the Honble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 23780 OF 2016)
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 to direct the Respondents herein to
appoint the Petitioner herein in 3rd Respondent Temple on compassionate grounds forthwith,
pending disposal of main Writ Petition, and pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. SWAPNA PRIYA CHAKKILAM
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENERGY (AP)
Counsel for the Respondents: 15527/GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
2
The Court made the following order:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India for the following relief/s:
...........pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction(s)
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondent
No.3 herein in not complying with the directions of the
Respondent No.2 herein dated 11.08.2015 in
Rc.No.C1/4469/2015 inspite of the reminder dated
22.09.2015 in Rc.No.C1/4469/2015, and not
appointing the petitioner herein on compassionate
grounds in the 3rd Respondent Temple in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.1357 (Revenue) Endowments Department,
dated 18.07.2011, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory,
irrational and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India, and consequently direct the
Respondents herein to appoint the Petitioner herein on
compassionate grounds in the 3rd Respondent Temple
with all consequential and attendant benefits, and pass
such other orders...
2. Pithily, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's
father died in harness on 18.11.2007, who worked as a
Gangman for approximately 12 years, and the petitioner's
mother was predeceased to her father. Though the petitioner
got married, the husband of the petitioner is also an
3
unemployee, and both are dependents on the deceased
employee. The petitioner made several representations to the
respondents, seeking appointment on compassionate
grounds. On the representation made by the petitioner, the
2nd respondent sought clarification from the 3rd respondent
(1) vide proceedings dated 15.05.2008, whether the petitioner
is dependent on the deceased Vennam Linga Reddy, who
served as Gangman in the 3rd respondent temple. (2) About
financial status of the petitioner, and (3) vide proceedings
dated 21.07.2008, whether the unemployed petitioner and
her husband were included in the Ration Card of the
deceased employee, and also sought information as to
whether the petitioner herein is dependent on the deceased
employee. The 3rd respondent has answered all the queries
raised by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner
herein.
3. It is also asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the
Writ Petition that the certificate issued by the revenue
authorities speaks that the petitioner and her husband are
unemployees and no source of income and it is also
specifically asserted that the petitioner has filed O.A. No.
4
11678 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal at Hyderabad, and the said O.A. was dismissed,
advising the petitioner herein to assail the rejection order
passed by the respondents herein.
4. It is also asserted that the proceedings in RC
No.A15753/2007 dated 02.06.2008, 21.07.2008 and
19.03.2009 wherein, the Additional Commissioner (FAC) and
Executive Officer has recommended to accord permission for
appointment of the petitioner herein, who is the dependent
on the deceased, on the compassionate grounds and
requested the Commissioner, Endowments department to
communicate orders at an early date and also contend that
financial status certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional
Officer dated 29.12.2007, unemployment certificate dated
03.02.2009, issued by the Tahsildar would indicate that the
petitioner and her husband are unemployees, though, the
petitioner urged the respondents herein to appoint her as per
their own proceedings of the department. The petitioner was
not provided with compassionate appointment.
5. It is also asserted that the Government has issued
G.O.Ms.No.1357, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department,
5
dated 18.07.2011 extending the scheme of compassionate
appointment to the dependent family members of the
deceased employees who died while in service, and the same
was being extended from time to time, and also she came to
know that the respondents have appointed one M. Lakshmi
Devi as attender, one Kum. P. Devika as Junior Assistant,
one T. Shiva Nagaraju as Attendar, and R. Mallikarjun as
Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds, and the
petitioner's case was not considered for appointment on
compassionate grounds. Therefore, the present Writ Petition
came to be filed, seeking direction to the respondents to
appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents filed
counter affidavit and fulminating the contentions raised by
the petitioner herein and he would contend that the case of
the petitioner was not considered as the petitioner is married
woman and the married woman is not entitled for
appointment on compassionate grounds. This Court
emphatically states that the only ground raised is that the
petitioner is not dependent on her father and she is
dependent on her husband. Therefore, her case was not
6
considered, and pleaded to dismiss the Writ Petition. No
other defence was raised, in the Writ Petition. The experience
in the way that it made this Court penned in. Now it has
become a new tendency to argue before Courts that the
grounds were not considered by the Single Judge, without
arguing before the single Judge, and filing review petitions
after filing of contempt case.
7. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is
entitled for compassionate or not on the ground raised by the
respondents.
8. It is expedient and profitable to quote judgments of
different High Courts and Memos issued by the Government
of Andhra Pradesh for proper appreciation of the facts and
law, for disposal of the Writ Petition.
9. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.612, General
Administration (SER-A) department dated 30.10.1991 was
issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to provide
compassionate appointment when the deceased employee
does not have any male child but leaves behind him/her, a
7
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 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.
10. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in the Memo
No.406/10/A.1/Admn.II/2004 dated 20.03.2004, has given
clarification to memo No.116417/SER.A/2003-I that once
marriage is performed, daughter is not dependent on her
father/mother, even if the daughter is unemployee or her
husband is unemployee and that a married daughter is
dependent on her parents, if the daughter is living with them
8
when her husband deserts her or disappears for years
together or dies, then she is dependent on her parents.
11. This Court in W.P. No.10340 of 2014, after considering
the judgment of Karnataka High Court, which is extracted
below, in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik vs. The State of
Karnataka and others, considering the judgments of different
High Courts, which are also referred below, directed the
respondents to consider the petitioner therein to appoint on
compassionate grounds holding that the married woman is
entitled for compassionate appointment.
"In Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik's case (1 supra) 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 (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
9
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. 16 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.
10
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.
12. And in judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court, at
Shimla, in Mamta Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others1, Division Bench Judgment of Allahabad High Court in
Smt. Vimla Srivastava and others v. State of U.P. and others 2,
Full Bench Judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in Udham
Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd., & another v.
Anjula Singh and others3, Division Bench, Judgment of
Bombay High Court in Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of
Maharashtra4 and another Division Bench Judgment of
Bombay High Court in Sou.Swara Sachin Kulkarni (Kumari
Deepa Ashok Kulkarni) v. The Superintending Engineer, Pune
Irrigation Project Circle and another5, it was held that a
"married daughter" was also held to fall within the inclusive
definition of "family" and also held that deletion of married
1 2020 SCC OnLine HP 2125
2 2016 (1) ADJ 21 (D.B.)
3 2019 (3) STC 30
4 2014 (5) Mah.LJ 543
5 2013 SCC OnLine BOM 1549 (DB)
11
daughter from the definition is violative of the Constitutional
mandate of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B. Muthamma v. Union
of India6 held as under:
Even if the applicant is residing in a separate house
that by itself, is not a ground to reject the claim
appointment. So far as the income of the applicant is
concerned, it is provided 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.
14. That the object in substituting Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, by Act no.39 of 2005, was to address
the discrimination that was inherent in the Section as it
stood before the amendment, whereby the females did not
inherit ancestral property as their male counterparts did. By
virtue of the amendment, the daughters were conferred the
status of coparceners so as to ensure that a share in
coparcenery property devolves on them along with and as
6 1979 (4) SCC 260
12
much as all sons. That on and from September 9, 2005, the
daughter would become a coparcener by birth for the
devolution of interest in coparcenery property.
Section 6 of the Act deals with devolution of interest of
a male Hindu in Coparcenary property and recognizes
the Rule of Devolution by survivorship among the
members of the coparcenary.
15. The very purpose of amending section 6 of Hindu
succession act:
Excluding the daughter from participating in the
coparcenary ownership not only contributes to her
discrimination on the ground of gender but also
has led to oppression and negation of her
fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the
Constitution. Having regard to the need of render
social justice to women, the States of Andhra
Pradesh, has made necessary changes in the law
giving equal right to daughters in Hindu
Mitakshara Coparcenary property.
16. As seen from the judgments canvassed by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the memos issued by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh and the recommendations
made by the Executive Officer to the 2nd respondent-
13
Commissioner to accord permission, to appoint the petitioner
on compassionate grounds and the certificates issued by the
revenue authorities that the petitioner and her husband are
unemployees, not considering the request of the petitioner on
the ground that the married daughter is not entitled to
appointment on compassionate grounds is unsustainable.
17. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the
case of the petitioner to appoint her on compassionate
ground and the said process shall be completed within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
18. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to
costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending
in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department,
Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
3. Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy, Devastanam, Srisailam, represented by its Joint
Commissioner And Executive Officer, Srisailam, Kurnool District.
4. One CC to SRI. SWAPNA PRIYA CHAKKILAM Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY (AP) ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
6. One CC to SRI. 15527/GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) Advocate [OPUC]
Two CD Copies
14
DATED:15/02/2024
The linked image cannot be
display ed. The file may hav e been
mov ed, renamed, or deleted. V erify
that the link points to the correct
file and location.
ORDER
