Disposed¶44

Smt. Addepalli Niharika Satya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Feb 2026WP/1707/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati (Justice D. Ramesh, 02.02.2026), W.P. No. 1707 of 2026: married daughter denied compassionate appointment after father's death in service; rejection under memo dated 20.03.2004 set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration under G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999, relying on W.P.No.10340 of 2014 dated 26.02.2021 (word 'Unmarried' struck down as violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21); disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned memo dated 23.01.2024 set aside; matter remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration within two (02) months, considering all relevant documents including the no objection certificates of the petitioner's younger sister and mother; no order as to costs. ¶44

Smt. Addepalli Niharika Satya Vs The State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment by the 2nd respondent vide memo dated 23.01.2024, on the ground that she is a married daughter not entitled under memo dated 20.03.2004, is illegal and arbitrary. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

In view of the observations in W.P.No.10340 of 2014 dated 26.02.2021 (where the word 'Unmarried' in the eligibility criteria was struck down as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21), the impugned memo dated 23.01.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration, taking into account all relevant documents including the no objection certificates of the petitioner's younger sister and mother, within two months.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the impugned order and G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (SER-A) Dept dated 30.07.1999, the petitioner falls under clause (a) of the conditions, as the younger sister is not willing to avail compassionate appointment.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — married daughter of deceased Government servant (Assistant Technical Officer, Tribal Welfare, Eluru District) — claim rejected by 2nd respondent vide Roc. No. A3/e-57183/2023 dated 23.01.2024 on the basis of memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.I/2004 dated 20.03.2004 treating a married daughter as non-dependent — Held: on perusal of the impugned order and G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (SER-A) Dept dated 30.07.1999, the petitioner falls under clause (a) of the conditions, the younger sister being unwilling to avail compassionate appointment and no objection certificate having been submitted; relying on this Court's decision in W.P.No.10340 of 2014 dated 26.02.2021, wherein the word 'Unmarried' in the eligibility criteria was struck down as discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, the impugned memo dated 23.01.2024 is set aside and the matter remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration of all relevant documents, including the no objection certificates of the petitioner's younger sister and mother, within two months — Writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

[3208]

¶2

APHC010002582026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 1707/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

SMT. ADDEPALLI NIHARIKA SATYA, D/O A. VENKATA RAMANA, R/O LIBRARY STREET, ASWARAOPETA ROAD JANGAREDDIGUDEM, ELURU DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238

¶14

THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ELURU, JALABHAVAN, COLLECTORATE COMPOUND, AMEENAPETA, ELURU DISTRICT - 534006.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the Roc. No. A3/e-57183/2023 dated23.01.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as illegal, arbitrary, colorable exercise of power and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds in accordance with Memo No.116417/SER.A/2003-1, dt 08.10.2003 and by Memo

¶17

¶18

DR,J W.P.NO.1707 of 2026

¶19

No.140733/Ser.A/2003-1 dt 14.11.2003 by setting aside the Roc. No. A3/e57T83/2023 dated 23.01.2024 and pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶24

¶25

DR,J W.P.NO.1707 of 2026

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER:-

¶27

The writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide impugned proceedings dated 23.01.2024 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds in accordance with Memos dated 08.10.2003 and 14.11.2003.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the elder daughter of Sri A.Venkata Ramana, who died on 22.03.2023 at Jangareddigudem, while he was working as Assistant Technical Officer in the office of the Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Kota Ramachandrarpuram, Eluru District. The petitioner herein acquired qualification of B.Sc Computers from William Carey University in the year 2011. It is further submitted that petitioner along with her younger sister and mother being the legal heirs submitted that there are no earning members in the family. Hence, the petitioner had made a representation dated 22.07.2023 along with all the relevant documents i.e., death certificate of her father, no earning member certificate, family members certificate, no objection affidavits of her younger sister and mother, qualification certificates etc., to the authorities requesting to provide compassionate appointment. It is further averred that the 2^nd respondent, without considering the said representation/application on proper perspective, has rejected the representation/application of the petitioner vide impugned memo dated 23.01.2024 stating that the petitioner is a married daughter and

¶29

¶30

DR,J W.P.NO.1707 of 2026

¶31

is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.I/2004, dated 20.03.2004 issued by the Government, which is totally improper and contrary to the various orders passed by this Court.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned memo dated 23.01.2024 on the ground that the memo dated 20.03.2004 issued by the Government would not apply to the petitioner. As per the memo dated 20.03.2004, it is stated that “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 a un-employee”. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. He further stated that the dependent children of a deceased Government Servant who dies while in service are eligible for compassionate appointment to the eligible post. But in the present case, the petitioner is not the dependent of the deceased Government employee. Hence, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

¶34

5 DR,J W.P.NO.1707 of 2026

¶35

In reply to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dependent children of the deceased Government servant who dies while in service are eligible for compassionate appointment for suitable post as per G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (SER-A) Dept dated 30.07.1999, Memo No.116147/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 08.10.2003 issued by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (SER-A) Department dated 30.07.1999, compassionate appointments to the dependent of deceased government employees are subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:-

¶36

“a. In para 2 (iii) of the G.O. it has been ordered that where the deceased employee does not have any male child but leaves behind him/her a married daughter and an unmarried minor daughter, the choice of selecting one of the them for appointment under the social security scheme shall be left to the spouse of the deceased.

¶37

b. In such cases Government hereby clarify when there is only a married daughter to the deceased Government employee without older or younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased Government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, such married daughter may be considered for compassionate appointment provided she is dependent on the deceased Government employee and subject to satisfying the other conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time.”

¶38

On perusal of the impugned orders as well as G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (SER-A) Dept dated 30.07.1999, it clearly shows that the petitioner shall come under clause (a) of the conditions, as the younger sister is not willing to avail

¶39

¶40

DR,J W.P.NO.1707 of 2026

¶41

the compassionate appointment and the petitioner has submitted no objection certificate from the younger sister.

¶42

Apart from that, in identical cases this Court has considered the issue in W.P.No.10340 of 2014 dated 26.02.2021 and held that the word “Unmarried” is strike down in clause-III of eligibility criteria of “Bread Winner Scheme” of the respondent Corporation holding that it is discriminatory, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

¶43

In view of the above observations in the said judgment, the impugned memo dated 23.01.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration. The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the same afresh and pass appropriate orders, taking into consideration all the relevant documents submitted by the petitioner including no objection certificates submitted by the younger sister and mother of the petitioner, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44