Married daughters may seek compassionate appointment, contingent upon proving financial dependency and fulfilling established governmental guidelines.

ORDER :

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

The petitioners filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the 3^rd respondent on 17.04.2023, wherein the case of the 2^nd petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

The 1^st petitioner’s husband Mohd.Younus was appointed as a Police Constable on 10.07.1989 and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanchan Bagh Police Station, Hyderabad. While in service, he expired on 24.10.2022. The 1st petitioner has two daughters by the name 1) Marium Fatima and 2) Samreen Fatima and one son by the name of Abrar Mohammed. The 1^st petitioner’s younger daughter Samreen Fatima resides with her husband and lives somewhere. The 2^nd petitioner is taking care of the 1^st petitioner in her old age. The 2nd petitioner is unemployed, and she cannot bear the medical expenses of the 1st petitioner. The 1^st petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased employee have decided to provide compassionate appointment to the 2^nd petitioner. Accordingly, the 1^st petitioner gave a detailed representation to respondent Nos.2 to 4, requesting to provide a compassionate appointment to the 2^nd petitioner in any suitable post. However, the 3^rd respondent, under the impugned order dated 17.04.2023, rejected the case of the 2^nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner’s son resides in Canada, and he is not taking care of his parents, and even he did not come to his father’s cremation. The 2nd petitioner is taking care of her mother in her old age. The 1^st petitioner’s younger daughter, Samreen Fatima, resides with her husband and lives somewhere. The 2^nd petitioner is unemployed, and she cannot bear the medical expenses of the 1^st petitioner. However, the 3^rd respondent, without considering the contentions of the 1st petitioner, erroneously rejected the case of the 2^nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. Since the 2^nd petitioner is unemployed and she is taking care of the 1^st petitioner, the 3rd respondent ought to have considered the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.21801 of 2023, dated 11.08.2023, W.P.No.19770 of 2023, dated 04.08.2023. He also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Jahar Khand at Ranchi in LPA Nos.617 of 2017 and 475 of 2017, dated 16.09.2019, wherein the claim of the applicant (married or unmarried sister) for being appointed on compassionate appointment was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide SLP (Civil) No.29678/2019, dated 12.11.2021.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ C.No.60881 of 2015 and batch, dated 04.12.2015, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.700 of 2018, dated 29.11.2018 and the judgment of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HYDERABAD CITY AND OTHERS Vs. K.PADMAJA , [2013 (4) ALT 501 (D.B.)]

6. Therefore, learned counsel submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the 2^nd petitioner for compassionate appointment.

7. (i) Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that while in service, the 1st petitioner’s husband died