Telangana High Court
R Jaya Lakshmi, Bhadradri Kothagudem ... vs The State Of Ts.,Agre.,Hyderabad, 2 ... on 13 October, 2022
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 27572 of 2017
ORDER:
Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. It is represented by both the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the counsel for the respondents that the matter in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 27.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.20859 of 2021 and the present writ petition may also be disposed of in the same lines.
3. Perused the record.
4. The reasoning given in rejecting the petitioner's request for proving employment on compassionate grounds in various letters issued to the petitioner read as under:
a) Lr No.6126/Agri.III(1)/2011-3, dated 25.04.2012 reads as under:
"While inviting your attention to the references cited, I am to inform that as per the clarification issued in Govt. Memo No.406/10/A.1/Admn.II/2004, Fin.(Admn.II) Department, dated 20.03.2004 Smt R.Sai Karunamai D/o (late) R.Sambi Reddy, Co-ordinator, DAATTC, Khammam who is married and living with her husband are un-employees. Therefore, the request of Smt R.Jayalakshmi W/o late Smt R.R.Sambi Reddy, Co-ordinator, DAATTC, Khammam to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to her only married Wp_27572_2017 2 SN,J daughter Smt R.Sai Karunamai is not feasible for consideration. The original certificates received through reference 4th cited are returned herewith.
2. This letter issues with the concurrence of General Administration (Ser.G) Department vide their U.O.No.2910/Ser.G/A1/2012-1, dated 04.04.2012."
b) Lr. No.1720/Agri.III(1)/2017, dated 08.05.2017 reads as under:
"I am to invite attention to the reference cited and it is already informed you vide Government letter No.6126/Agri III(1)-3, dated 25.04.2012 that the married daughter in the instant case was not dependant on the deceased Government Servant, as on the date of death, hence, the request of Smt R.Sai Karunamai, daughter of deceased for compassionate appointment is not feasible for acceptance."
c) Memo No.13964/C.A.Ser.(NT)/A2/2016, dated 05.06.2017 reads as under:
"With reference to the representation 1st cited, Smt R.Sai Karunamai, only married, daughter of Dr R.Sambi Reddy who worked as Co-ordinator at District Agricultural Advisory and Transfer of Technology Centre (DAATC), Khammam and expired while in service on 03.05.2010, is informed that, her request for providing employment on compassionate grounds is not feasible for acceptance, as she was not dependant on the deceased Government Servant, as on the date of death, as per the reference 3rd cited (copy enclosed)"
d) Letter No.A1/37/DAATTC/KMM/2017, dated 13.06.2017 reads as under:
"As per the directions of the Registrar, PJTSAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad vide reference 1st cited above, it is to inform you that your request for providing employment on compassionate grounds has not been feasible for acceptance vide reference above. The copies of references 1st and 2nd cited are enclosed herewith for your information."
Wp_27572_2017 3 SN,J
5. Under the impugned letters\Memo dated 25.04.2012, 08.05.2017, 05.06.2017 and 13.06.2017, the petitioner No.2 was held not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds on the premises that petitioner No.2 was married and cannot be treated as dependant. In the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16242 of 2013, dated 20.06.2013, it was held that married daughter is entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds subject to her eligibility. The same view was taken in a subsequent decision in W.P.No.41931 of 2017 dated 05.06.2018.
6. A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court dealing with a situation where compassionate appointment was denied to a married daughter on the ground that she did not place any material to show that she was dependent on her father in Commissioner of Police and others v K.Padmaja at para 8 and 9, observed as follows:
8) As evident from the scheme notified by the Government, the dependant children of a deceased Government servant who dies in harness are eligible for compassionate appointment to the Ministerial posts, such as Clerks, Typists, Steno-typists etc. When a doubt had arisen whether a married daughter can be considered to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment, it is clarified in the orders issued by the Government itself in G.O.Ms. No. 350, dated Wp_27572_2017 4 SN,J 30.07.1999 and further orders dated 08.10.2003 issued in memo No. 116417/Ser.A/2003-1, that married daughters are entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds, subject to eligibility as per the scheme notified in this regard. A certificate issued by the Spl. Grade Deputy Collector, Ranga Reddy District is placed on record certifying the financial position of the applicant as unsound. Even in the report submitted by the Station House Officer, Ghatkesar, in clear terms it is stated that the applicant and her husband were living in the house of the deceased Sri K. Ramachandra Raju and were also taking care of widow of Sri K. Ramachandra Raju.
9. Basing on the additional material placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, before this Court to-day, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the applicant and her husband were staying separately with their own income. A perusal of report dated 15.06.2013 makes it clear that the husband of the applicant is an unemployee. Even with regard to income of the applicant, it is clearly stated that she is staying in the out house of house bearing No. 2-2-12/6, D.D. Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad and is eking livelihood by sewing clothes. There is no other material to reject the claim of the applicant as she is not having definite income of her own and she was dependant on her late father. 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 her mother (widow of the deceased employee). No valid reasons were recorded by the authorities, to reject the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment. Even by way of counter, no reasons were added to support the order passed by the authorities. Except the contention of the petitioners that the respondent is getting some income by sewing clothes and residing separately in an out-house, and, a vague report placed on record to- day, there is no other material to show that she is having definite income on her own. Even as per the said applicant's report, husband is stated to be unemployed. Yet another defence is taken by the learned counsel that as the wife of the deceased is Wp_27572_2017 5 SN,J getting family pension, the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. But the same cannot be accepted. Merely because family pension is being paid to the wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to deprive the benefit of compassionate appointment under this scheme notified by the Government for the children of the deceased who died in harness.
7. In C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India MANU/SC/0580/1979 : (1979) 4 SCC 260, the Hon'ble Apex Court at para No. 6 observed as 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 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 diplomatic assignment has been filled by women, the inference of diehard allergy to gender parity is inevitable.
8. 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, Wp_27572_2017 6 SN,J 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 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.
9. In Mamata Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (judgment dated 20.12.2016 in CWP No.4609 of 2021), in a similar issue which 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 Wp_27572_2017 7 SN,J 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.
10. In Udham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. & another vs. Anjula Singh and others MANU/UC/0459/2019 :
2019 (3) STC 570 (Uttarakhand) : (2019) 2 UPLB EC1, the High Court of Uttarakhand (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."
11. In the case of R. Govindammal Vs. Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Wp_27572_2017 8 SN,J Programme Department, Chennai in MANU/TN/2247/2015 : 2015 (5) CTC 344, the learned Judge 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 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.
12. This Court opines that there is no justification in the reasoning given in the impugned letters/memo dated 25.04.2012, 08.05.2017, 05.06.2017 and 13.06.2017 and the same are not valid under law and they are only intended to deprive the petitioners lawful entitlement as per rules in force.
13. 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 Wp_27572_2017 9 SN,J 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 relieve 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 one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. The said relief should not be denied on flimsy grounds defeating the very object of the compassionate appointment.
14. Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts referred to and discussed above the impugned letters/memos dated 25.04.2012, 08.05.2017, 05.06.2017 and 13.06.2017 are set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment to any Wp_27572_2017 10 SN,J suitable post and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 13.10.2022 Note: L.R. copy to be marked b/o skj