JUDGMENT

P.Naveen Rao, J. - Heard Mr. C.Narender, learned counsel for petitioner, and the learned standing counsel for respondents.

2. Late B.Mangamma, who was working as Sweeper, died on 05.04.2001 while in service. Petitioner is daughter of late Mangamma. Petitioner was married to Sri B.Narsimha Rao on 29.03.1991. Petitioner was blessed with four children. Petitioner claims that she divorced her husband on 11.07.1998 and was living with her mother till her death, and was totally dependent on her mother's earnings. After the demise of her mother, petitioner made application to provide appointment on compassionate grounds. Petitioner claimed to have made representations soon after the death of her mother, on 05.03.2002, in the year 2004 and on 28.06.2006. On 26.12.2001 request of petitioner was rejected. In the communications, in response to subsequent representations, the fact that request was rejected earlier was informed. This Writ Petition is filed praying to declare the communication informing rejection of her request for compassionate appointment as illegal and arbitrary, and sought consequential directions.

3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, as petitioner was the only daughter of late Mangamma, she is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. After the divorce she was completely dependent on her mother and after the death of her mother, she is suffering financially, more so as she was left alone to look after four girls. As per the policy, even a married daughter is entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. He would therefore submit that denial of appointment is wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. He would submit that even at this stage also, petitioner is facing lot of hardship to eke out a living and to take care of four grown up children.

4. Learned standing counsel would submit that the claim of petitioner that she was dependent on her mother is false. The claim of divorce is also not valid. There is no decree of divorce submitted. Alleged customary divorce is also not true. He would submit that the stamp papers on which alleged divorce was recorded stated to have taken place on 18.06.1998 were purchased on 11.07.1998. There is no explanation on this discrepancy.

5. The claim is also vitiated by delay. The claim was rejected on 30.01.2001, but petitioner waited till 2006. In the subsequent decisions, petitioner was only informed about earlier decision. Further, petitioner filed an affidavit of her husband dated 25.09.2001. Once divorce was granted, question of said person being treated as husband and giving an affidavit does not arise. He would therefore submit that claim is not valid. He would submit that scheme to provide employment on compassionate grounds to married daughter was introduced for the first time w.e.f. 08.10.2003 and was not applicable to old cases. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to seek employment even otherwise.

6. In a nutshell, petitioner claims appointment on compassionate grounds contending that she is a divorcee and dependent on her late mother Mangamma.

7. Two aspects require consideration. Firstly, whether her claim is valid ? and secondly whether such claim is hit by delay and laches ?

8. Petitioner has not restricted her claim only as a married daughter of deceased employee, but claimed employment as divorcee dependent on her mother. According to her, she took divorce by following customary practices and divorce was recorded on a stamp paper in the presence of elders. Respondents disputed her claim of divorce. It is asserted by respondents that the divorce was written on stamp papers dated 11.07.1998 recording alleged divorce dated 18.06.1998. It is further asserted that husband deposed to affidavit dated 25.09.2001 stating that he was not employed and if divorce took place there was no need to file such an affidavit. These specific assertions in the counter-affidavit, which are crucial to genuineness of the claim, are not denied. No othe