Telangana High Court
Nawapeta Meena vs The State Of Telangana, on 30 July, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.14080 OF 2023
Between:
Smt Nawapeta Meena
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana & Others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 30.07.2025
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes.
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
________________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.14080 OF 2023
% 30.07.2025
Between:
# Smt Nawapeta Meena ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana & Others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner Smt.
: Rachana Reddy,
learned Senior Designated Counsel
^Counsel for Respondents Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Services-III
? Cases Referred:
(i) 2013 (4) ALD 501 (DB)
(ii) (1979) 4 SCC 260
(iii) Writ Petition No. 25366 of 2008
(iv) Judgment dated 20.12.2016 in CWP No.4609 of
2021)
(v) 2019 (3) STC 570
(vi) 2015 (5) CTC 344
3
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.14080 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Smt. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, appearing on behalf of 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 of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Letter vide Lr.No.A2/1404/2022 Dt.08.06.2022, thereby rejecting proposal of District Welfare Officer for providing employment to the Petitioner under compassionate grounds, in spite of enclosing all the relevant documents, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Article 21 under the Constitution of India, and in violation of principles of natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to accept the petitioners appointment application and provide employment to the Petitioner for the post of Junior Assistant and pass..."4
SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, is as follows:
The petitioner is the daughter of Late Smt. Navapeta Chandramani, who worked as a Contract Supervisor (Extension Officer Grade-II) in the ICDS Project, Jogipet, Medak District, for about 7 years until her demise on 23.06.2021 due to cancer. After her death, the petitioner, being the elder child and legal heir, applied for a compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant in the ICDS or any other suitable department. The petitioner submitted all necessary documents including NOC from other legal heirs, income and unemployment certificates, and educational qualifications. The District Welfare Officer forwarded the proposal vide letter Lr.No.54/A1/2022 dated 19.04.2022 to the District Collector, but it was returned stating to take necessary action as per rules in vogue.
Thereafter, the application of the petitioner was rejected vide Lr.No.A2/1404/2022 dated 08.06.2022 by the respondents without proper consideration of petitioner's 5 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 case. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD:
(A) The relevant portion of the order impugned vide Lr.No.A2/1404/2022 dated 08.06.2022 issued by the Collector, Sangareddy District to the District Welfare Officer, WCD & SC Department, Sangareddy District, is extracted under:
"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 maybe considered for compassionate appointment, provided she is dependent on the deceased Government employee.
Where the deceased employee does not have any male child but leaves behind him a married daughter and an unmarried minor daughter, the choice of selecting one of them for appointment under the social security scheme shall be left to the mother.6
SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 But, in the instant case, Smt. N.Meena D/o. Late Smt. M.Chandramani is a married daughter and the deceased employee have a male child as per the Family Member Certificate Issued by the Tahsildar, Andole vide Mee Seva Certificate No.FAMC022100885183, dated: 04.09.2021.
Therefore, the proposals received through the reference cited are returned herewith with a request to take necessary action into the matter as per rules in vogue."
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
5. Smt. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on account of the death of her mother, late Smt. M. Chandramani, Supervisor Grade-II, Officer of the CDPO ICDS Project, Sangareddy District, who expired on 23.06.2021 while in service, was returned unilaterally without conducting any enquiry into the petitioner's eligibility solely on the ground that the petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee, and further, that the deceased employee has a male child, as reflected in the family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar, 7 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 Andole, vide Mee Seva Certificate No. FAMC022100885183, dated 04.09.2021, particularly as per Circular Memo No. 60681/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 12.08.2003, which is arbitrary and illegal.
6. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, as per Circular Memo No. 60681/Ser.A/2003-1 dated 12.08.2003, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought for in the present writ petition as the said Memo clearly stipulates that compassionate appointment may be considered only if the deceased employee does not have a male child. In the present case, the family member certificate dated 04.09.2021 clearly indicates the existence of a male child in the family, hence the petitioner's application was returned.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, though there is a male child in the family, yet a No Objection Certificate (NOC) had been duly enclosed, wherein the male child had given his consent for compassionate appointment to be granted to the petitioner herein, and though the petitioner is a married daughter, 8 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 petitioner had been supporting the family, and therefore, her application for compassionate appointment has to be considered and the same cannot be returned unilaterally at the threshold itself merely on the ground that the petitioner is a married daughter and that there is a male child in the family.
8. This Court opines that the impugned order dated 08.06.2022, passed by the Collector, Sangareddy District, returning the proposals submitted by the District Welfare Officer, WCD & SC Department, Sangareddy District, for providing employment under compassionate ground to the petitioner, who is a married daughter of the deceased employee, is arbitrary and is issued hastily in a routine mechanical manner, without application of mind, without conducting any enquiry, without examining the petitioner's application and the relevant documents submitted by the petitioner in support of petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment solely on the ground that there is a male member in the family and that the petitioner is a married daughter, without even affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, hence the rejection of application 9 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 by Respondent No.4 is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, and unsustainable.
9. This Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for consideration of petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, after due enquiry to be conducted by the respondents herein duly examining the relevant documents submitted by the petitioner in support of the petitioner's case and arrive at a conclusion regarding the petitioner's eligibility for compassionate appointment, in accordance with the applicable scheme and the rules in force. However, in the present case, admittedly as borne on record no such exercise had been undertaken by respondent No.4. Insofar as the second ground raised by the respondents that there is a male child in the family is concerned, this Court opines that respondent No.4 ought to have considered the fact, as borne on record, that it is the specific case of the petitioner that all the family members have issued No Objection Certificates and have expressed their willingness for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10
SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 In so far as the ground that the petitioner is a married daughter and therefore petitioner's request for compassionate appointment cannot be considered is concerned this Court opines that the said plea is untenable and rejected in view of the observations in the various Judgments extracted hereunder.
10. A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2013 (4) ALD 501 (DB) 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 dependent 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 11 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 clarified in the orders issued by the Government itself in G.O.Ms. No. 350, dated 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 outhouse of house bearing No. 2-2-12/6, D.D. 12 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 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 today, 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 getting family pension, the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. But the same cannot be accepted. 13
SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 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."
11. 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 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 14 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 has been filled by women, the inference of diehard allergy to gender parity is inevitable.
12. 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, 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.
15
SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023
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."
13. 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 16 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 of 2021), in a similar issue which arose with regard to non consideration of married daughter for compassionate appointment, observed as under:
"True it is that under the Constitution of India it is impermissible for State to draw any assumption to use 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 17 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 is, could not withstand the test of Article 15 of the Constitution of India."
14. 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."
18
SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023
15. In the case of R. Govindammal Vs. Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, Chennai in MANU/TN/2247/2015 : 2015 (5) CTC 344, the learned Judge had directed the first respondent to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, as 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.
16. A bare perusal of the record indicates a clear recommendation made by the District Welfare Officer WCD and SC Department, Sangareddy to the District Collector Sangareddy District vide letter No.54/A1/2022, which specifically refers to the relevant certificates of the petitioner i.e., (i)check slip for compassionate appointment, (ii) Educational qualification certificate( SSC, Inter, Master of Pharmacy) (iii) Birth Certificate, (iv) No Earning 19 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 Member Certificate, (v) No Property certificate, (vi) Unemployment certificate (vii) legal heir certificate
(viii) Death certificate (ix) Local cadre certificate (Residential) (x) Financial Status Certificate (xi) No Objection Certificate, submitted by the petitioner to the respondents, but however the said relevant certificates of the petitioner, who is the married daughter of the deceased employee had not been examined by the District Collector, Sangareddy, nor considered, nor any enquiry conducted by the respondents pertaining to the genuinity of the said certificates submitted by the petitioner herein and a decision on merits admittedly had not been arrived at in so far as the eligibility of the petitioner as per the scheme of the compassionate appointment is concerned, and the request of the petitioner had been returned by the Collector, Sangareddy vide the impugned certificate, dated 08.06.2022, vide letter No.A2/1404/2022, on the ground that the petitioner is the married daughter and the deceased employee had a male child unilaterally, erroneously, hastily, 20 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 mechanically without application of mind, without taking into consideration, the very object of the scheme of the compassionate appointment.
17. 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 look after the family. The said relief should not be denied on flimsy grounds defeating the very object of the compassionate appointment. 21
SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023
18. This Court in the light of discussion and conclusion arrived at para Nos.5 to 17 of the present order opines that the respondents have a bounden duty to reconsider the request of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment in accordance to law and take a decision accordingly.
19. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
(b) The submissions made by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, appearing on behalf of respondents,
(c) The order impugned vide Lr.No.A2/1404/2022 dated 08.06.2022 issued by the Collector, Sangareddy District addressed to the District Welfare Officer, WCD & SC Department, Sangareddy District, 22 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023
(d) The letter of the 3rd respondent dated 19.04.2022 addressed to the 4th respondent,
(e) The observations of the Apex Court and other various High Courts as referred and extracted above, The writ petition is allowed. The order impugned vide Lr.No.A2/1404/2022 dated 08.06.2022 issued by the 4th respondent i.e., the Collector, Sangareddy District addressed to the District Welfare Officer, WCD & SC Department, Sangareddy District, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent No.4 for reconsideration of the request of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner herein duly taking into consideration the observations in the Judgments of the Apex Court and other High Courts in the various Judgments referred to and extracted above, duly examining all the relevant documents submitted by the petitioner in support of the petitioner' case which had been forwarded through proposals vide Letter No.54/A1/2022 dated 19.04.2022 of the District 23 SN,J W.P.No.14080_2023 Welfare Officer, WCD and SC Department, Sangareddy, addressed to the 4th respondent herein after conducting due enquiry as per the existing scheme of compassionate appointment and the rules in force as on date in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and pass appropriate orders pertaining to the request of the petitioner to provide employment to the petitioner under Compassionate grounds and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA 30.07.2025 Note: Issue CC by today L.R.Copy to be marked b/o LPD/VJB