Telangana High Court
B. P. Mamatha Malini vs The State Of Telangana on 18 July, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.34344 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri T.Sridhar, learned counsel representing Sri Enugala Bheema Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. K.Udayasri, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking the prayer as under:
".....to issue a writ order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in rejecting the compassionate appointment to the petitioner, inspite of petitioner fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per G.O.Ms. No. 350 dated 30-7-1999 as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representations made by the petitioner dated 16.09.2020 and 10.10.2023 by providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner and pass......."
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the only daughter of late B.P. Peter, who died in 2 SN,J W.P.No.34344_2023 service on 04.07.2020 while working as a Cashier at the Vegetable Research Station, Rajendranagar. The petitioner, along with petitioner's aged and ailing mother and unemployed husband, was solely dependent on the deceased. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment with the petitioner's mother's consent under G.O.Ms.No.350, dated 30.07.1999, which allows such appointment to a married daughter if the individual is dependent and there are no other children. However, the 2nd respondent rejected request of the petitioner contrary to G.O.Ms.No.350 and the order of this Court passed in W.P.Nos.16242 of 2013 and 41931 of 2017, which affirm that a dependent married daughter is eligible. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD:
A) The relevant portion of the letter of respondent No.2-the Registrar, Sri Konda Laxman Telangana State Horticultural University Administrative Office, Mulugu dated 30.08.2023 vide Lr.No.185/Estt./Ser(NT)/SKLTSHU/ 2023 addressed to the respondent No.1-Principal Scientist (Ento.) & 3 SN,J W.P.No.34344_2023 Head Vegetable Research Station, Rajendranagar, is extracted hereunder:
"In compliance to the note orders vide reference 3 cited and as per the Memo No. 406/10/A.I/Admn.II/2004 dated 20-03-2004 of the Secretary to the Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance (ADMIN.ii) Department, "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".
Hence, as the legal heir is not fulfilling the requirements as stated above, the proposal may not be possible to consider for Compassionate Appointment." DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, devoid of reasons, and appears to have been passed solely to deny compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that the writ petition deserves to be allowed in view of the judgment of this Court dated 13.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.27572 of 2017 and therefore submits that the issue may be remitted to respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the petitioner's case 4 SN,J W.P.No.34344_2023 for compassionate appointment as per the rules in force, duly considering the petitioner's representations dated 16.09.2020 and 10.10.2023, within a reasonable period.
6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
7. In the judgment of a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High 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.
8. In "C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India"
MANU/SC/0580/1979 : (1979) 4 SCC 260, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 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 5 SN,J W.P.No.34344_2023 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.
9. 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 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 6 SN,J W.P.No.34344_2023 look after the family. The said relief should not be denied and hence the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected unilaterally, mechanically in a routine casual manner stating that the applicant does not fall under the guidelines in vogue, defeating the very object of the compassionate appointment without conducting any enquiry unilaterally to decide whether petitioner falls within the said guidelines duly examining petitioners claim by examining the petitioners relevant documents in support of petitioners case.
10. This Court taking into consideration the fact as borne on record that the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent clearly indicates that admittedly as borne on record, no enquiry had been conducted to ascertain if the petitioner was dependent and there are no other claims, opines that the order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice, and the matter be remitted to respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the subject issue in accordance with law, since the 2nd respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment unilaterally 7 SN,J W.P.No.34344_2023 without assigning any reasons. Respondents herein are duty bound to consider the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment duly conducting an enquiry duly examining if the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria laid down under the scheme as per the rules in force as on date. However, the said exercise admittedly had been done by the respondents herein in the present case and therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the respondents are bound to reconsider the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance to law and take a decision in the matter.
11. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,
c) The contents of the impugned order dated 30.08.2023 passed by respondent No.2, vide 8 SN,J W.P.No.34344_2023 Lr.No.185/Estt./Ser(NT)/SKLTSHU/2023, addressed to respondent No.1, clearly indicates that it was passed mechanically, without application of mind, and without assigning any reasons and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. (referred to and extracted above),
d) The object of the scheme of compassionate appointment, The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30-08-2023, vide Lr.No. 185/Estt./Ser (NT)/SKLTSHU/2023, issued by respondent No. 2 is set aside. The matter relating to the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment as the dependent of the deceased employee, late Sri B.P. Peter (Cashier, Vegetable Research Station, Rajendranagar), is remitted to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration and due enquiry on the subject issue in accordance to law in conformity with the principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as per the Rules in force as on date, duly taking into 9 SN,J W.P.No.34344_2023 consideration the object of the compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision on petitioner's request for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA 18.07.2025 Note: Issue CC by today b/o LPD