IMPORTANT POINT
Married daughters are entitled to compassionate appointment on par with sons, as marital status does not negate their familial ties or dependency.

ORDER :

K. Manmadha Rao, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo in Rc.No.2336/2021/A3, dated .09.2021 as unconstitutional and against the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently directing the respondents No.3 to 5 to consider the petitioner’s daughter for compassionate appointment and pass such other order or orders……”

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband Sri Bhagavathula Ramalinga Sastry died on 30-04-2021 while working as School Assistant (Telugu) in Zilla Parishad High School, Vanapamula village, Pedaparapudi Mandal. They blessed with only one daughter by name Ms. Indira, she completed her B.Sc degree in the year 2015 from Krishna University, and during the life time of petitioner’s husband Sri. Bhagavathula Ramalinga Sastry, they performed their daughter's marriage on 10-12-2018. After demise of petitioner’s husband, she made an application to the respondents requesting to provide compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter on the basis of her qualification to the respondent No.3, who in turn, forwarded the application to the 4th respondent for taking necessary action in view of a Government circular in memo No. 35252/Ser.G/A1/2011-1. But no action has been taken. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation to the 4th and 5th respondents on 29-07-2021 for the same relief, but the same was also rejected by the 5th respondent vide R.c.No.2236/2021/A3, dated 14-08-2021. Again the petitioner made another application, dated 20-09-2021 clarifying the confusion of the 5th respondent stating that the petitioner is seeking only for her daughter's compassionate appointment as she is the only one child to them and that they have no other children. The 5th respondent again refused her request vide Rc.No. 2236/2021/A3, dt: -09-2021. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the petitioner’s husband was worked as School Assistant in Zilla Praja Parishad High School, Vanapamula, while he was working in Z.P.H. School Vanapamula died on 30.04.2021. After demise of her husband the petitioner made a representation on 29.07.2021 seeking compassionate appointment to her married daughter. It is submitted that the petitioner daughter was married and living away from the family of deceased employee. In view of fact that the petitioner daughter was married and not dependent upon the deceased family, and in this connection, the petitioner’s request has been rejected vide proceedings in R.C.No.2236/2021/A3, dt. 14.08.2021 by following the instructions issued by the Government vide 406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004, Fin (Admn.II) Dated: 20.03.2004. Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004, dated 26.03.2004. It is further stated that the petitioner made another representation dated 20.08.2021 to the 4th respondent requested to consider her daughter case for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the Government had issued following instructions vide Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004, Fin (Admn.II) Dated: 20.03.2004 considering married daughter for compassionate appointment. In the present case, the petitioner daughter was married to one Sri Kota Phani Raj Raghavendra and living with him and not dependent upon the deceased family. Hence she is not eligible for compassionate appointment as the Memo dated 20.03.2004. Therefore, the action of this respondent is quite legal and valid. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri P.V.S. K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III and Sri G.Srinivasula Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP, MPP appearing for the respondents.

5. On hearing, learned counsel appearing