Telangana High Court
Smt. M. Sharadha And Another vs Professor Jayashankar Telangana ... on 27 July, 2022
Bench: B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.20859 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioners are aggrieved by Memo
No.12075/SCR.NT/A3/2019-21 dated 18.06.2021 and consequential
Memo No.1099/EEI/A1/2019-21 dated 29.06.2021 issued by the
respondent No.1 whereunder the claim of the petitioner No.1 to
appoint herself or alternatively her elder daughter, petitioner No.2
herein, to suitable post under the scheme of compassionate
appointment in the place of her late husband was rejected.
2. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner No.1,
Mr. Ramulu (watchman) died on 27.11.2018 while in service.
Initially the petitioner No.1 made an application/representation
dated 16.08.2019 for appointment on compassionate grounds. By
impugned memo dated 18.06.2021, the request of the petitioner
No.1 was rejected stating that she crossed 45 years of age on the
date of the death of her husband and that the petitioner No.2 is
also not eligible as she is married and she cannot be treated as
dependant on her deceased father. It appears that later several
representations were made by the petitioners seeking
compassionate appointment. However, their request was rejected
vide another memo dated 29.06.2021 reiterating the stand taken in
the memo dated 18.06.2021.
3. Mr. Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner No.2 is a divorcee.
The decree of divorce dated 06.03.2020 passed in FCOP.No.1361 of
2019 by the Family Court was enclosed along with the application
for appointment on compassionate grounds. The rejection is
contrary to the law laid by a Division Bench of this Court in
WP.No.16242 of 2013 dated 20.06.2013 and subsequent judgment
of a Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.41931 of 2017 dated
05.06.2018.
4. Mr. B. Timothy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
and 2, contended that the petitioner No.2, who is the elder
daughter of the deceased employee, is married. She appears to
have filed petition for divorce on 13.12.2019, after one year of
death of her father and in view of the same, she cannot be treated
as dependant of her father. More so, she was married when her
father died and was living with her husband. FCOP.No.1361 of 2019
filed by the petitioner No.2 was allowed by an ex parte decree.
Once daughter is married, she is not the dependant of her father or
mother. The petitioner No.1 crossed 45 years and she is also not
eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. As on the date
of death of M. Ramulu, the petitioner No.2 was neither a divorcee
nor a widow.
5. Heard Mr. Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. B. Timothy, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 2.
6. Under the impugned memos dated 18.06.2021 and
29.06.2021, the petitioner No.2 was held not eligible for
appointment on compassionate grounds on the premise that she
was married and cannot be treated as dependant. In the judgment
of a Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.16242 of 2013 dated
20.06.2013 it was held that married daughter is entitled for
consideration for appointment of compassionate grounds subject to
her eligibility. The same view was taken in a subsequent decision in
WP.No.41931 of 2017 dated 05.06.2018. In the instant case,
the petitioner No.2 is a divorcee and the contention of the petitioner
No.2 that she was dependant on her father was not rebutted by the
respondents by any relevant material. Thus, the rejection of the
application of the petitioners for appointment of petitioner No.2 on
compassionate grounds is arbitrary and unsustainable.
7. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned rejection memos dated 18.06.2021
29.06.2021 are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider
the case of the petitioner No.2 for appointment of compassionate
grounds treating her as the dependant of deceased, Mr. Ramulu,
if she is otherwise eligible and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
July 27, 2022
DSK
