ORDER:

1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“ to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the respondent No.2 in L.Dis.No.510/ME-5/2019 dated 23.10.2019 and respondent No.3 in C.No.4378/A1/2019 dated 04.11.2019 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India apart from being in negation of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.16243/2013 dated 20.06.2013 and consequently set aside the same with a direction to the respondents to give suitable appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds……”.

2. Heard Sri M.K.Ratnam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.V.Rama Rao, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner viz., Sri Maredupaka Sudhakar worked as Sub-Inspector of Police and died on 22.12.2017 while in service. The parents of the petitioner are having four daughters and they are all married. The petitioner, being elder daughter of her parents, is residing with her parents along with husband. As per the compassionate appointment scheme, the petitioner is eligible and qualified to be appointed on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the mother of the petitioner made a representation to the respondents within one year from the date of death of father of the petitioner and the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner basing on the Memo No.406/10/A1./Admn.II/2004, Fin. (Admn.II) dated 20.03.2004 and passed impugned orders on 23.10.2019.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are contrary to the G.Ms.No.350, GAD (Ser.A) Department dated 30.07.1999 and the clarification in Memo No.116417/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 08.10.2003. As per the said order, if the deceased Government employee was having more than one dependant married daughter and when the spouse of the deceased Government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, one of the dependant married daughters may be considered for appointment, subject to eligibility as per the scheme of compassionate appointment.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that now the respondents without taking account of the G.Ms.No.350, GAD (Ser.A) Department dated 30.07.1999 and the clarification in Memo No.116417/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 08.10.2003 rejected the case of the petitioner basing on the Memo No.406/10/A1./Admn.II/2004, Fin. (Admn.II) dated 20.03.2004 which was subject matter before this Court in number of Writ Petitions and the Division Bench of this Court declared that the said Memo was not the policy of the Government and requested to allow the writ petition.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied on the following judgment:

1. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and others Vs. K.Padmaja, 2013 (4) ALT 501 (DB)

7. The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents basing on the counter submits the petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased and as per Memo No.406/10/A1. /Admn.II/2004, Fin. (Admn.II) dated 20.03.2004, once marriage was performed a daughter is not dependant on her father even if she is unemployed or her husband is unemployed and a married daughter is dependent on her father if she is living with her parents when her husband deserts her and the respondents have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner in the impugned orders as the petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased and she is not dependant on the deceased employee and she is the dependant on her husband and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

8. After hearing both sides and on perusing the records this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is the eldest daughter of the decease