Point of Law: Compassionate appointments -If - marital status of a son does not make any difference in Law to his entitlement for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the marital status of a daughter should make no difference, as the married daughter does not seize to be a part of the family and Law cannot make an assumption that married sons alone continue to be the part of the family.

ORDER :

The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the Letter dated 08.11.2021 and Memo dated 12.11.2021 of the respondent Nos.3 and 5 in rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner, in any suitable post, on compassionate grounds by setting aside the above mentioned Letter and Memo impugned in the Writ Petition.

2. Heard Mr. M.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the contesting respondents.

3. The brief facts, as set out in the affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, may be narrated for better appreciation of the petitioner’s case:

The petitioner is the daughter of one Mr. Y.Satyanarayana, who died in harness while working as watchman under the 3rd respondent on 23.10.2020 leaving behind him the petitioner’s mother, elder married sister, younger brother and the petitioner as his legal heirs. The petitioner’s mother made a representation to the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds as the bread winner in the family died in harness. Along with said representation, the relevant documents i.e., No Earning Member Certificate, Family Members Certificate, No Objection Affidavit of the petitioner’s sister and brother etc., were enclosed. The respondent No.3 instead of considering the said application, rejected the same through Memo dated 08.11.2021 inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner is married and not dependent upon her parents. Further, reliance is placed on Memo of the Government dated 20.03.2004. In consequence of the same, the 5th respondent, issued letter dated 12.11.2021 rejecting the petitioner’s request in terms of the Memo of the 3rd respondent dated 08.11.2021. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that as per the scheme notified by the Government, the dependent children of a deceased Government servant who dies while in service are eligible for compassionate appointment to a suitable post and the Government in Memo No.116417/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 08.10.2003 clarified that the married daughters are entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds, subject to eligibility as per the scheme notified by the Government. He further submits that as per the said Memo, the choice among the dependents was conferred on the wife of deceased Government employee and in accordance with the same, No Objection affidavit was submitted along with the petitioner’s application to the effect that the other dependents of the deceased employee have no objection for considering the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel while stating that, in fact, the 3rd respondent had issued orders appointing the married daughters of deceased employees on compassionate grounds as detailed in the affidavit, further submits that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the same benefit was not extended. He submits that the reliance placed by the 3rd respondent on Memo dated 20.03.2004 is not sustainable in the light of the orders of Hon’ble Division Bench in Commissioner of Police and Others v. K.Padmaja, 2013 (4) ALT 501 and W.P.No.3017 of 2020 dated 11.12.2020, W.P.No.17548 of 2019 dated 15.12.2020 etc., as also a judgment of learned Single Judge of High Court of Karnataka in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik v. State of Karanataka, 2020 SCC Online Karnataka 3397 and urges that the Writ Petition be allowed by setting aside the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, on the other hand, on the basis of written instructions and the brief note received from the respondents 3 and 5 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the son of the deceased employee in fact, made an a