A married daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment if she is dependent on the family and does not have any independent source of income.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed to set aside the memo dated 13.03.2020 issued by the 1st respondent. A writ of Mandamus is sought to set aside the said memo dated 13.03.2020 to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner is the daughter of late Sri K.Konda Babu, who was working as Police Constable with the respondents died in February, 2014, leaving the petitioner and her mother and two other children. Initially, the widow of late Konda Babu-the petitioner’s mother submitted an application for compassionate appointment, but later, she withdrew the same and requested the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner. After protracted correspondence lasting over a number of years, a final order dated 13.03.2020 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the same is questioned in this writ petition.

2. This Court has heard Sri R.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for Services-I, who appeared for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s mother made an application within one year of the death of her husband for compassionate appointment. Later, on health grounds, she requested the respondents to provide employment to the present petitioner, who is her educated daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that since the application of the mother was submitted within time, the issue is not in doubt. He points out that on 24.11.2016, the petitioner’s mother requested the respondents to provide employment to the present petitioner herein as she is educated.

4. This was followed by an application by the petitioner herself on 06.01.2017. On 24.01.2017, the request made by the mother was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the verification of the family membership certificate revealed that the petitioner was married and hence, she is not eligible for compassionate appointment. Later, the petitioner started correspondence with the State/the respondents seeking employment directly. The respondents rejected her case on 13.03.2020 essentially on the ground that she is married and that she is not dependent upon the deceased. This is questioned by the petitioner by arguing that in view of the settled law on the subject even a married daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel relies upon the case law which is enclosed to the writ petition including the Division Bench judgments of the A.P.High Court. Ultimately, he relies upon the order of this Court in WP.No.10340 of 2014 dated 26.02.2021 to argue that a married daughter is also eligible for compassionate appointment. Apart from that, learned counsel argues that the certificates filed, including “no earning member certificate” issued by the Revenue Department on 11.09.2019 shows that the petitioner is not an earning member of the family. Learned counsel relies upon the case law which is enclosed and the last case filed with a memo to argue that married daughter is eligible if she is dependent on the family and does not have any income. He also submits that the petitioner has taken a customary divorce and an application for formal divorce also pending adjudication in F.C.OP.No.1804 of 2017 before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. A copy of the customary divorce dated 16.11.2016 is enclosed. On the basis of the facts and law, the learned counsel submits that this is a fit case to order compassionate appointment as the family of the petitioner is in distress and needs immediate help. Therefore,he prays for an order.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services very strongly argues for the respondents. He urges that the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment as she has not proved that she is ‘dependent’ on the family. It is also strongly urged that the petitioner's husband is working as Police Constable in Armed Reserve, Visakhapatnam City and that there is no proof filed that divorce was in fact t