Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

2026:APHC:34696

WRIT PETITION No.6472 of 2025

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

Between:

Gogutattu Sujana, D/o. Gogutattu Penchalaiah, Hindu, Aged about 31 years, R/o Pennepalli Village, Pellakur Mandal, Tirupathi District. …. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District & 5 others. ..... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. Mallavolu Kavitha

Counsel for the Respondents: 1) GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, 2) GP for Services-I, 3) GP for Services-II, 4) Addl. Advocate General

Cases referred:

1) (2024) 1 APLR 503

2) 1994 (4) SCC 138

3) (2004) 7 SCC 271

4) (2004) 7 SCC 265

5) (2007) 4 SCC 778

6) (2008) 11 SCC 384

7) (2012) 11 SCC 307

8) (2014) 15 SCC 739

9) 2025 LiveLaw SC 187

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to a) Declare the inaction of the Respondent No.5 as illegal, arbitrary and violative Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India and Scheme of appointment of family member of the deceased employee on compassionate ground under Government Order, clarifying by issuing Government Order and Government Memos, from time to time issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh b) Direct the Respondent No. 5 to consider my application for appointment to any suitable post on compassionate grounds keeping in view the law laid down by the Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in various judgments and G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Ser.A) Department dated 30-07-1999 and Clarification Memo No.116417/Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 08-10-2003 and to pass such other order.

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 5 to dispose of the application dated 21-01-2023 keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in various judgments and G.O.Ms. No. 350 General Administration (Ser.A) Department dated 30-07-1999 and Clarification Memo No.116417/Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 08-10-2003 as expeditiously as possible fixing time frame pending disposal of the writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order.

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to grant leave for filing counter affidavit in the W.P.No.6472 of 2025 and pass

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Nikitha
For the Respondents: Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle of equality in public employment (Art. 16) and must be restricted to cases of extreme financial indigency, where the family is living 'hand-to-mouth', requiring strict verification of dependency.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 14, 15, 16, 19 - Compassionate appointment - Objective of appointment is to provide immediate relief to family in penury - Not a source of regular employment - Must be restricted to cases of extreme financial indigency - Requirement of dependency and financial indigency defined.

(B) Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility of married daughters - Subject to proof of dependency on deceased Government servant even after marriage - Mere status of marriage does not disqualify, but documentation of financial reliance is essential.

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a married daughter of a deceased Library Assistant, sought compassionate appointment, relying on Government orders and previous judicial precedents advocating for the inclusion of married daughters in such schemes. The State, however, contended that the Petitioner failed to establish financial dependency on her father at the time of his death.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that compassionate appointments have been excessively granted since the state's bifurcation, viewing them as an encroachment upon the equality of opportunity for public employment. It mandated a re-drafting of guidelines to define financial capacity, ex-gratia compensation, and the use of outsourcing for needy dependents.

Issues: Whether a married daughter is entitled to compassionate appointment, and whether the current administrative mechanism for compassionate appointments complies with constitutional mandates of equality in public employment.

Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is an exception to Art. 16 and must be strictly confined to instances of 'hand-to-mouth' existence/financial indigency; the State must balance humanitarian relief with the right to public employment for the qualified unemployed youth.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions for the State to re-draft guidelines.

The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION No.6472 of 2025

ORDER:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. The brief facts are as follows;

The father of the Petitioner by name Gogutattu Penchalaiah while working as Library Assistant had died intestate on 20.12.2022 due to ill-health. The mother of the Petitioner predeceased her father. The Petitioner being the only daughter was married prior to the death of her father.

3. It is stated that the Petitioner and her husband were unemployed and were dependent on the salary of the Petitioner’s father. In the writ affidavit reliance was placed on G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, G.O.Ms.No.687, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1977 and G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1999, which enabled consideration of married daughters for appointments on compassionate grounds.

4. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Ch. Damayanthi v. APSRTC (W.P.No.10340 of 2014, dated 26.02.2021) and similar Judgments in Bagavthula Bala Tripura Sundari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh¹1) (2024) 1 APLR 503, N. Sujana K. Sujana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh [W.P.No.14248 of 2021 dated 29.07.2022] and Katika Prameela v. The State of Andhra Pradesh [W.P.No.26946 of 2021 dated 25.02.2022].

5. In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.1-State, it is stated that compassionate appointment is not a right, but only to enable financial distress caused to the family. It is stated that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.114, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 21.08.2017 enhancing the ex-gratia amount payable to the dependents instead of compassionate appointment. As per the said G.O., the dependents of Class-IV employees are granted an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, while the dependents of Non-Gazetted Officers and Gazetted Officers are granted amounts of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively.

6. It is further stated that though there is no bar for a married daughter to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, the same is subject to establishing that the married daughter was dependent on the deceased Government Servant even after her marriage. It is stated that in the present case, no such proof is filed to establish the said fact.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. M. Nikitha would submit that a sympathetic view ought to be taken vis-à-vis considering the object and purpose of compassionate appointments. The learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Ch. Damayanthi (referred supra) in support of her contention that the married daughters are entitled for compassionate appointment.

8. Sri Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Office of the Additional Advocate General would submit that the Petitioner could not establish dependency and no particulars of her husband were mentioned. It is stated that the date of marriage was also not mentioned in the writ affidavit or any documents establishing proof of residence along with the deceased father were filed by the Petitioner and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.

9. Heard Ms. M. Nikitha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Keerthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Office of the Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondents.

10. This Court on 01.09.2025, considering the numerous claims for compassionate appointment, had sought information regarding the number of appointments made on compassionate grounds in various Departments in the State, including the State-owned Corporations.

11. Along with the Counter-Affidavit, a letter addressed by the Special Chief Secretary to the Government, General Administration (Ser. & HRM) Department, Government

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 12372

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle of equality in public employment (Art. 16) and must be restricted to cases of extreme financial indigency, where the family is living 'hand-to-mouth', requiring strict verification of dependency.

Cases Referred (3)