HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.34344 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri T.Sridhar, learned counsel representing Sri Enugala Bheema Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. K.Udayasri, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking the prayer as under:

“…..to issue a writ order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ Mandamus declaring the action of 2^nd respondent in rejecting the compassionate appointment to the petitioner, inspite of petitioner fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per G.O.Ms. No. 350 dated 30-7-1999 as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representations made by the petitioner dated 16.09.2020 and 10.10.2023 by providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner and pass.......”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the only daughter of late B.P. Peter, who died in service on 04.07.2020 while working as a Cashier at the Vegetable Research Station, Rajendranagar. The petitioner, along with petitioner’s aged and ailing mother and unemployed husband, was solely dependent on the deceased. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment with the petitioner’s mother's consent under G.O.Ms.No.350, dated 30.07.1999, which allows such appointment to a married daughter if the individual is dependent and there are no other children. However, the 2^nd respondent rejected request of the petitioner contrary to G.O.Ms.No.350 and the order of this Court passed in W.P.Nos.16242 of 2013 and 41931 of 2017, which affirm that a dependent married daughter is eligible. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The relevant portion of the letter of respondent No.2-the Registrar, Sri Konda Laxman Telangana State Horticultural University Administrative Office, Mulugu dated 30.08.2023 vide Lr.No.185/ Estt./ Ser(NT)/ SKLTSHU/ 2023 addressed to the respondent No.1-Principal Scientist (Ento.) &

Head Vegetable Research Station, Rajendranagar, is extracted hereunder:

“In compliance to the note orders vide reference 3 cited and as per the Memo No. 406/10/A.I/Admn.II/2004 dated 20-03-2004 of the Secretary to the Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance (ADMIN.ii) Department, "Once marriage is performed, a daughter is not dependent on her father/ mother even if she is un-employee or her husband is un employee. A married daughter is dependent on her father/ mother if she is living with her father/ mother when her husband deserts her or disappears for years together or dies, in all such cases, the husband should not have left any property/income to his wife and the married daughter is solely dependent on the support provided by her father/mother and is an un-employee".

Hence, as the legal heir is not fulfilling the requirements as stated above, the proposal may not be possible to consider for Compassionate Appointment.”

DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON:-

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, devoid of reasons, and appears to have been passed solely to deny compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that the writ petition deserves to be allowed in view of the judgment of this Court dated 13.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.27572 of 2017 and therefore submits that the issue may be remitted to respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment as per the rules in force, duly considering the petitioner’s representations dated

16.09.2020 and 10.10.2023, within a reasonable period.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.