R Sujatha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R SUJATHA, D/O. LATE R.APPARAO, AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. VELAMAKOTHURU, POLAVARAM BRIDGE ROAD, PMAY URBAN, TUNI - 533401, KAKINADA DISTRICT

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

¶16

APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BAVAN, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT

¶17

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, EAST GODAVARI REGION APSRTC, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶18

THE DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, APSRTC BUS STAND, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT

¶19

THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, TUNI.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not

¶22

DR,J

¶23

W.P.No.8025 of 2025

¶24

providing the employment to the petitioner under compassionate grounds in place of her deceased father R.Apparao by rejecting her claim as per the endorsement in Rc No. PA/321(1)/2025-Dpto. KKD dated 10.03.2025 on the ground that petitioner is a married daughter as bad, illegal, arbitrary, abuse of power, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith grant appointment to the petitioner in the place of her deceased father on compassionate grounds as per her eligibility to grant all service and monitory benefits and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.D V SASIDHAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶29

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶30

DR,J W.P.No.8025 of 2025

¶31

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶32

The writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in not providing the employment to the petitioner under compassionate grounds in place of her deceased father R.Apparao by rejecting her claim as per the endorsement in Rc No. PA/321(1)/2025-Dpto: KKD dated 10.03.2025 on the ground that petitioner is a married daughter is illegal.

¶33

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the younger daughter of Sri R.Apparao, who died on 03.10.2021, while he was working as Assistant Depot Clerk, APSRTC in Tuni Depot. It is further submitted that petitioner along with her elder 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 15.11.2021 along with all the relevant documents i.e., death certificate of her father, no property certificate, no earning member certificate, family members certificate, no objection affidavits of her elder sister and mother, qualification certificates etc., to the respondents requesting to provide compassionate appointment. It is further averred that the 5^th respondent, without considering the said representation/application on proper perspective, has rejected the representation/application of the petitioner vide impugned endorsement dated 10.03.2025 stating that the petitioner is a married daughter and 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.

¶34

DR,J

¶35

W.P.No.8025 of 2025

¶36

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

¶37

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected vide endorsement dated 10.03.2025 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.

¶38

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

¶39

DR,J W.P.No.8025 of 2025

¶40

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:-

¶41

“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.

¶42

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.”

¶43

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 elder sister is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment and the petitioner has submitted no objection certificate from the elder sister.

¶44

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

¶45

DR,J W.P.No.8025 of 2025

¶46

“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;

¶47

In view of the above observations in the said judgment, the impugned endorsement dated 10.03.2025 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 taking the no objections certificate submitted by the elder sister and mother of the petitioner into consideration, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

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

¶49