ORDER :

1. The question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the State Government is justified in refusing compassionate appointment to widowed daughter-in-law (the petitioner herein) of the deceased Government Servant on the ground that the policy issued for such appointment does not include widowed daughter-in-law.

2. The above-stated question arises in the following factual matrix of the case:

Sri Lakshmi Padmavati Sameta Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Devastanam, Vaikuntapuram, Tenali-respondent No. 2 is an institution, registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) and published under Section 6 (a) of the Act, wherein the annual income of the institution is over and above Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. One Ch. Yedukondalu, father-in-law of the petitioner, who was working as Attender in respondent No. 2- Devastanam, died in harness on 03-04-2013. The deceased Ch. Yedukondalu was survived by his wife Smt. Ch. Sugunamma, widowed daughter-in-law-the petitioner herein and a married daughter by name Smt. Vema Durga. The son of Ch. Yedukondalu predeceased him on 27-12-2012. As such, on the date of death of Ch. Yedukondalu, his widow and widowed daughter-in-law-the petitioner herein are the dependents on him.

Thereafter, Smt. Ch. Sugunamma-the wife of late Ch. Yedukondalu applied for being appointed on compassionate grounds. Respondent No. 1 issued proceedings on 21-02-2015 appointing Smt. Ch. Sugunamma as Attender. While things stood thus, the said Sugunamma also died in harness on 01-07-2017 leaving behind her widowed daughter-in-law. The petitioner herein, being widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased Government Servant, made an application for compassionate appointment as per G.O.Ms. No. 1357, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 18-07-2011 issued in this behalf by the State Government. The competent authority, by its order dated 17-07-2018, rejected the claim of the petitioner which is impugned in the present writ petition.

3. Counter has been filed by the respondents-State stating inter-alia that the applicable G.O. and the guidelines regarding eligible dependents show that the petitioner, being daughter-in-law, is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. Heard Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Special Government Pleader, attached to the office of learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contends that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 is illegal as widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased Government employee is none other than a family member; that unfortunately, husband of the petitioner predeceased his parents and that therefore, on the date of death of the deceased Government employee i.e. Smt. Ch. Sugunamma, the petitioner is dependent on her.

6. Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Special Government Pleader and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposed stating that the scheme as provided under G.O.Ms. No. 1357 dated 18-07-2011 does not apply to daughter-in-law and that as per the scheme, dependent family member means spouse and son/daughter.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the object and purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the employee dying in harness and the criteria to consider the case for compassionate appointment should be based on dependency. Learned counsel would further submit that husband of the petitioner predeceased his parents i.e. in-laws of the petitioner and the petitioner is solely dependent on her mother-in-law who died in harness and therefore, exclusion of the petitioner from consideration for compa