Allowed

Smt. E. Gowthami, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026WP/27332/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a married daughter of a deceased government employee, sought compassionate appointment after her mother's death. Her claim was rejected because she is a married daughter and the spouse of the deceased was no longer alive. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kulsum Nisha, held that marital status alone cannot be a ground to deny compassionate appointment and that a married daughter remains a member of her natal family. The court set aside the impugned order and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's claim within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order Rc.No.338/EOB/2023-E dated 30.07.2024 set aside; respondents directed to reconsider petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders within four months.

Smt. E. Gowthami, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010523812024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 27332 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. E. Gowthami,, W/o. E. Satish Kumar, Aged about 31 year, Occ- un-employee, R/o. D. No. 5-6-98/10A1, 10th Ward, Lakshmipuram, Hindupur, Sri Sathya Sai District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The Commissioner of Sericulture, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶13

The District Sericulture Officer, Puttaparthi, Sri Sathya Sai District.

¶14

The Assistant Director of Sericulture, Hindupur, Sri Sathya Sai District.

¶15

...Respondents 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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropiate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned Rc.No. No. 338/EOB/2023-E dated.30.07.2024 in view of the Rc.No.37/2024-E3 dated.23.07.2024 of the 3rd Respondent in returning the Proposal of the Petitioners appointment on compassionate ground as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the scheme of the compassionate appointment G.O.Ms.No. 350 of General Administration(Ser.A) Department dated.30.07.1999 and also

¶16

¶17

violates Circular Memo No. 60681/Ser.A/2003-1 dated 12.08.2003 issued by the Department of General Administration (SER.A), Government of Andhra Pradeshand consequently to direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner any suitable post on compassionate Grounds by duly suspending the impugned Rc.No. No. 338/EOB/2023-E dated.30.07.2024 issued by the 4th Respondent in view of the 3rd Respondent Proceedings vide Rc.No.37/2024-E3 and to pass

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

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 direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner any suitable post on compassionate Grounds by duly suspending the impugned Rc.No. No. 338/EOB/2023-E dated.30.07.2024 issued by the 4th Respondent in view of the 3'"'^ Respondent Proceedings vide Rc.No.37/2024-E3 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

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 of the counter affidavit in W.P No. 27332 of 2024 and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SHAIK MEERAVALI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order:

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO: 27332 of 2024

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

¶28

“….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned Rc.No. No.338/EOB/2023-E dated 30.07.2024 in view of Rc.No.37/2024-E3 dated 23.07.2024 of the 3^rd Respondent in returning the Proposal of the Petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the scheme of the compassionate appointment G.O.Ms.No. 350 of General Administration (Ser.A) Department dated 30.07.1999 and also violates Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1 dated 12.08.2003 issued by the Department of General Administration (SER.A), Government of Andhra Pradesh and consequently to direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner any suitable post on compassionate grounds by duly suspending the impugned Rc.No. No.338/EOB/2023-E dated 30.07.2024 issued by the 4^th Respondent in view of the 3^rd Respondent Proceedings vide Rc.No.37/2024-E3 and to pass……”

¶29

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the Respondents in rejecting the Petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, vide Rc.No.338/EOB/2023-E, dated 30.07.2024, on the ground of the death of the Petitioner’s mother.

¶30

¶31

Petitioner’s mother, late Smt. E. Obulamma, while working as a Technical Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Director of Sericulture, Hindupur, died on 13.11.2023. Consequent upon her demise, the Petitioner and her father submitted an application, dated 28.12.2023, seeking appointment to any suitable post on compassionate grounds. Petitioner’s father also submitted a No Objection Certificate expressing his consent for providing employment to the Petitioner on compassionate grounds.

¶32

Petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased employee and that the spouse of the deceased employee had also expired, and, therefore, she was not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. Along with her application, Petitioner submitted various documents in support of her claim, including certificates relating to her educational qualifications, No Objection Certificate furnished by her father consenting to her appointment, Family Member Certificate evidencing that she is a member of the family of the deceased Government employee, no Property Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, and Dependent Certificate establishing that she was dependent upon the deceased Government employee and is the only daughter of the deceased.

¶33

¶34

Petitioner further states that she is married to one E. Satish Kumar, who is also unemployed, and that she is residing in the house of the deceased Government employee. She also submitted an Unemployment Certificate. According to the Petitioner, she is neither employed in any Government department nor engaged in any private employment and has no source of income, and there is no earning member in her family. She belongs to BC-B category.

¶35

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the Respondents, submits that compassionate appointment to the married daughter is provided to look after the spouse of the deceased government employee. When the spouse of the deceased government employee is not alive, the purpose of providing employment to the married daughter will not be served.

¶36

The grievance of the Petitioner is that, notwithstanding the fact that she was dependent upon the deceased Government employee, is the only daughter of the deceased employee, and there is no other earning member in the family, her claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected solely on the ground that she is a married daughter. The Petitioner contends that a married daughter is also entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble

¶37

¶38

Supreme Court of India in Kulsum Nisha Vs. State of U.P. and

¶39

Others¹ which is extracted as under:

¶40

“17. A Constitution Bench of this Court after taking note of a decision rendered by seven Judge Bench of this Court has held that Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation, but permits reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. A classification, however, must satisfy two conditions, firstly, it must be founded upon an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and secondly the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The doctrine of equality has, over time, evolved beyond a narrow classification test. State action, which is arbitrary, irrational, capricious, or founded on impermissible stereotypes is equally vulnerable to challenge under Article 14.

¶41

18. Examined on the touchstone of these principles, the exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of “family” cannot be sustained. The object of allotment under the dependent quota is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased dealer facing financial hardship. The relevant considerations are dependency, financial need, residence, and the ability of the applicant to discharge the obligations attached to the dealership. Marital status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations.

¶42

19. The impugned provision proceeds on the assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family. Such an assumption is constitutionally impermissible. Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency. Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents. Equally, there may be sons who are not dependent upon the family despite being included within the definition. Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone.

¶43

20. Significantly, the scheme does not exclude a married son from consideration. A son continues to remain within the fold of the family irrespective of his martial status, whereas a daughter is excluded solely because she is married. The distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all ties with her natal family. Such a presumption is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality and perpetuates historical notions of gender inequality which the Constitution seeks to eradicate.

¶44

1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1059

¶45

¶46

Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents, and upon perusing the material available on record, it is evident that Petitioner was dependent upon the deceased Government employee. Claim of the Petitioner has been rejected primarily on the ground that she is a married daughter and that the spouse of the deceased Government employee is no longer alive.

¶47

The marital status of the Petitioner, by itself, cannot constitute a valid ground to deny her consideration for compassionate appointment or to discriminate against her on the ground of marriage. Merely by reason of her marriage, Petitioner cannot be treated as having ceased to be a member of her natal family. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the judgment referred to hereinabove, has categorically held that a married son is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment and that a married daughter is also equally entitled to such consideration; marriage, by itself, does not sever her status as a member of the family of the deceased employee.

¶48

In the present case, the material placed on record, including the certificates issued by the competent authorities, clearly establishes that the deceased Government employee was the sole earning member of the family and that the Petitioner was dependent upon her.

¶49

¶50

Such material evidence cannot be disregarded merely on the ground that the spouse of the deceased Government employee is no longer alive. In the circumstances, the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim solely on the aforesaid grounds is arbitrary and unsustainable, being contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶51

Accordingly, the impugned order bearing Rc.No.338/EOB/2023E, dated 30.07.2024, is hereby set aside. The Respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶52