Disposed¶53

Mandapati Usha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jan 2026WP/35100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment - married daughter of deceased APSRTC employee; rejection memo dated 26.11.2024 set aside; remanded for fresh consideration per G.O.Ms.No.350 (30.07.1999) and W.P.No.10340 of 2014 (26.02.2021); Articles 14, 16, 21.

What did the court decide?

Impugned memo dated 26.11.2024 of the 5th respondent set aside; matter remanded to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration with directions to pass appropriate orders within two months, taking into consideration the certificates filed in the writ petition; no order as to costs. ¶53

Mandapati Usha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 5th respondent in rejecting the 2nd petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment vide communication dated 26.11.2024, on the ground that she is a married daughter, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

In view of the observations in W.P.No.10340 of 2014 dated 26.02.2021, the impugned memo dated 26.11.2024 issued by the 5th respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the impugned orders and G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (SER-A) Dept dated 30.07.1999, the 2nd petitioner comes under clause (a) of the conditions, as her mother is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment and the 2nd petitioner has submitted a no objection certificate from her mother.

¶47

Key takeaways

The 5th respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶51
While considering the representation/application of the 2nd petitioner, the respondents shall also take into consideration the certificates filed in the writ petition.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Single Judge, Justice D. Ramesh) - Writ Petition disposed of. The 2nd petitioner, a married daughter of an APSRTC employee who died in service on 18.12.2023, was refused compassionate appointment by the Depot Manager, APSRTC Salur Depot (Lr.No.P1/756(1)/2024-Salur, dated 26.11.2024) on the strength of Government memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.I/2004 dated 20.03.2004 excluding married daughters. Holding that, per G.O.Ms.No.350, GA (SER-A) Dept dated 30.07.1999, the petitioner falls under clause (a) since her mother declined the appointment and furnished a no objection certificate, and relying on the Court's earlier ruling in W.P.No.10340 of 2014 (26.02.2021) striking down the word 'Unmarried' in the Bread Winner Scheme eligibility criteria as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21, the Court set aside the impugned memo and remanded the matter to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration within two months, with directions to consider the certificates filed in the writ petition; no costs.

¶1

¶2

APHC010676402025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3208]

¶6

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 35100/2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

MANDAPATI USHA, W/O. MANADAPTI VENKATA RAMANA RAJU, RIO. D.NO.52-69, GADI STREET, NEAR RAMA MANDIRAM, VTC SALUR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶12

MANDAPATI MOHANA RAVALI,, D/O. MANADAPTI VENKATA RAMANA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.52-69, NEYYILA VEEDI, SALUR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT- 535691.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ROAD AND BUILDINGS, A.P.SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶17

APSRTC, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHANVA, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA.

¶18

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, VIZIANAGARAM.

¶19

THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, SLAUR DEPOT, SALUR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶20

THE DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER CUM REGIONAL MANAGER, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT.

¶21

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶22

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT.

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶25

¶26

be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action and impugned communication of the 5^th Respondent vide Lr.No.P1/756(1)/2024-Salur, dated 26.11.2024 rejecting my claim for compassionate appointment as arbitrary and violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to me in a suitable post with all salary and attendant benefits with interest @12 percent p.a and grant costs of the proceedings and pas

¶27

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶28

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 Respondents to provide compassionate appointment to me immediately pending hearing in the Writ Petition and pass

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶30

1.M PITCHAIAH

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶37

“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the action and impugned communication of the 5^th Respondent vide Lr.No.P1/756(1)/2024-Salur, dated 26.11.2024 rejecting my claim for compassionate appointment as arbitrary and violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to me in a suitable post with all salary and attendant benefits with interest @12 percent p.a and grant costs of the proceedings and pass….”

¶38

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

¶39

The case of the petitioners is that the 2^nd petitioner is the daughter of Sri Mandapati Venkata Ramana Raju, who died on 18.12.2023 while in service in APSRTC i.e. respondent nos.3 to 5. The 2^nd petitioner herein acquired qualification of M.B.A from Andhra University in the year 2019. It is further submitted that 2^nd petitioner and 1^st petitioner mother being the legal heirs submitted that there are no earning members in the family. Hence, the 2^nd petitioner had made a representation dated 26.4.2024 along with all the relevant documents i.e., death summary certificate of her father, family members certificate and qualification certificates etc., to the respondent no.5 requesting to provide compassionate appointment. It is further averred that the respondent no.5, without considering the said representation/application on proper perspective, has rejected the representation/application of the 2^nd petitioner vide impugned memo dated 26.11.2024 stating that the 2^nd petitioner is a married daughter and is not

¶40

¶41

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.

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the application submitted by the 2^nd petitioner has been rejected vide memo dated 26.11.2024 on the ground that the memo dated 20.03.2004 issued by the Government would not apply to the 2^nd 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 an un-employee”. In view of the same, the 2^nd 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 2^nd petitioner is not the dependent of the deceased Government employee. Hence, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

¶43

¶44

In reply to the same, learned counsel for the petitioners submit 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 petitioners further submit 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:-

¶45

“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.

¶46

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.” 6. On perusal of the impugned orders as well as G.O.Ms.No.350, GA

¶47

(SER-A) Dept dated 30.07.1999, it clearly shows that the 2^nd petitioner shall come under clause (a) of the conditions, as her mother is not willing

¶48

¶49

to avail the compassionate appointment and the 2^nd petitioner has submitted no objection certificate from her mother.

¶50

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;

¶51

In view of the above observations in the said judgment, the impugned memo dated 26.11.2024 issued by the 5^th respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 5^th respondent for fresh consideration. The 5^th respondent is directed to consider the same afresh and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

It is needless to mention that while considering the representation/application of the 2^nd petitioner, the respondents shall also take into consideration the certificates filed in writ petition.

¶53