1. Shaheen Sultana v. The State of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23651 of 2O23 ORDER: The petitioners filed the present ' writ petition aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the 3'd respondent on 1,7 -O4.2O23, wherein the case of the 2nd petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was rejected'

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The 1"t petitioner's husband Mohd.Younus was appointed as a Police Constable on 1O'O7' 1989 and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchar Bagh Police Station, Hyderabad' While in service, he expired on 24.1O.2022. The 1"t pstitioner has two daughters by the name 1) Marium Fatima and 2) Samreen Fatima ald one son by the name of Abrar Mohammed. The 1"t petitioner's younger daughter Samreen Fatima resides with her husbarrd and lives somewhere. Ttte 2"d petitioner is taking care of the 1"t petitioner in her o1d age. The 2nd petitioner is unemployed' and she cannot bear the medical expenses of the l"t 2 petitioner. The 1 "t petitioner and other legr{. heirs of the deceased employee have decided to provide compassionate appointment to the 2nd petitioner. Accorclingly, the 1st petitioner gave a detailed representation t,l respondent Nos.2 to 4, requesting to provide a compassionate appointment to the 2nd petitioner in any s;uitable post. However, the 3.d respondent, under the imougned order dated 17.O4.2023, rejected the case of the 2r'd petitioner for compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1.t petitioner's son resides in Canada, and he is not taking care of his parents, and e'zen he did not come to his father's cremation. The 2"d petitir:ner is taking care of her mother in her old age. The l"t petitioner's younger daughter, Samreen Fatima, resides with her husband and lives somewhere. The 2"d petitioner is unemployed, and she cannot bear the mediczLl expenses of the l"t petitioner. However, the 3.d respondent, without considering the contentions of the L "t petitioner, 3 erroneously rejected the case of the 2na petitioner for compassionate appointment. Since the 2nd petitioner is unemployed and she is taking care of the 1"t petitioner, the

3.d respondent ought to have considered the case of the 2"d petitioner for compassionate appointment' In support of his contentions, learned counsel 4. appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.21BO1 of 2023, dated ll'O8'2O23' W.P.No. 19770 of 2023, dated O4.O8'2O23' He also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Jahar Khand at Ranchi in LPA Nos'617 of2Ol7 and 475 of 2Ol7 , d.ated 16.09.201.9 , wherein the claim of the applicant (married or unmarried sister) for being appointed on compassionate appointment was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide SLP (Civil) No'29678/201'9, dated t2.t1.2021 . 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ C.No.60881 of 2015 and batch, dated 04'12'2015, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in I 1 W.A.No.700 of 20lB, dated 29.1 1.2018 and the judgment of this Court in COMMISSIONER O.F. POLICE, HYDERABAD CITY AND O?IIERS Vs. K.PADMAJAI.

6. Therefore, learned counsel submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by Se tting aside the impugned order ald allowing the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the, 2"a petitioner for compassionate appointment 7 . (i) Learned Special Government Plea<ler appearing for the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that r'vhile in service, the 1"t petitioner's husbrend died on

24.10.2022. The l"i petitioner, the wife of the deceased, submitted an application on 0 1 .O4.2O23 statrng that she has two daughters ar-rd one son, and the 2.d pr:titioner, who is the daughter of the 1"t petitioner, 1S a qualified ald unemployed person. The other daughter and son have less qualifications and are not interested in a gor,'ernment job. The 1"t petitioner requested the respondents to appoint the '20r3 (4) ALr'sol (D.B.) 1 ) lna petitioner in any suitable post under compassionate grounds. (ii) On verification of the documents submitted by the 1"t petitioner, it is noticed that her son Sri Abrar Mohammed is NRI working in Canada qnd an earning family member. While working, the deceased submitted the HRMS Personal Registry Form and self declaration on 30.O7.2021. In the said form, under the head of dependents details, the deceased only mentioned his spouse name Smt. Shaheen Sultana, i.e., the 1"t petitioner, he has not mentioned his children's names as dependents' (iii) The 1"' petitioner has not submitted the Financial Status Certihcate of family members, and the 2nd petitioner, who is a married daughter of a deceased employee, has also not submitted the Finalcial Status Certificate of her husband and the employment details of her husband. The married daughter is not eligible for compassionate appointment as per the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government' 6 (iu) The Government of Telangana issued certain guidelincs and instructions for appointment on compassionate grounds in Governrnent Memo No.406/10/A1lAclmn.IIl2OO4, dated 2O.Oti.20O4, Memo No.11008/WNT/All2010, dated 21.05.:2r110, Memo No.L.Dis.No.191/Mtr-S/ME2l2Ol7, dated t6.O2.2Ot8, Memo No.11008/WNT/A1l2010. G.O.Ms.No.35O, dated

30.07.1999, G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 03.t0.1977 and G.O.Ms.No.6 12. dated 30. 10. 1991. (.,) Since the son of the deceased i:; an e arning member of the family, no other member ol' the family is eligible for a compassionate appointment. T'herefore, the case of thr: 2"d petitioner was examined an<l rejected vide impugned order. There are no merits in the writ petirion and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the 1.r petitiorrer has not submitted the Financial Status CertificzLte of family members and the 2nd petitioner, rvho is a married daughter of the deceased employee, has also not submitted the 7 Financial Status Certificate of her husband and also the details with regard to the employment of her husband. The married daughter is not eligible for compassionate appointment as per the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government. Therefore, the 3'd- respondent has rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. g. Heard Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents- Perused the record' 10. In the instant case, the question is whether the married daughter is eligible for a compassionate appointment 1 1 . As per the several memos issued by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh and the several judgments passed by the High Courts and Apex Court, a married daughter is also eligible for compassionate appointment, subject to the following conditions :- 8 (i) Tl-re deceased employee should have only one married daughter, and there should be no other person in the family. Even that married datrghter 1S dependent on the deceased employee's family. (ii) The deceased employee does not trave any male chitd. but leaves behind hirrL a married daughter and an unmarried minor daughter. Thr: choice of selecting one of them for apporntment under the Social St:<:urity Scheme shall be left to the mother. (iii) The married daughter and her l-rusband are dependent on the deceased farn ily and shall prove their financial status that they are not in a position to lead a normal life aftt:r the death of the deceased.

12. In the czrse on hand, the deceased employee has t.r,r,o daughters and one son. As per the record, the deceased's son is an NRI u,orking in Canada. The 2"a petitioner did not state anythr ng regarding her husband's <:rnpioyment or 9 financial status. In the HRMS Personal Registry form and in the self-declaration on 30-Ol.2O2l, the deceased mentioned only the name of the l"t petitioner as his dependant, and he did not mention his children's narnes'

13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the 2nd petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment, since the 2"d petitioner is looking a-fter the 1st petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPANos.617 ot2Ol7 and457 of 2017, dated 16'O9'2019'

14. In the above case, a common question of iaw is involved in both the Letter Patent Appeals as to whether the sister and the mother of the deceased workman of CCL, who were admittedly not included as dependants under Clause 9.3.3 of the Nationai Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), could be appointed on compassionate ground, in absence of there being any other dependent under Clause 9 3'3' of 10 the NCWA. The High Court of Jharkand allorved the said LPAs on 16.O9.2019, by observing as follows :- "25. We are of the considered uieu.t that the ca:;e of the appetlan.ts is fully couered by the decisions relied upon bg learned r:oun.sels for the appellonts herein before. The non- inclusiort of the parents and sister oJ the deceased tuorkman dging in harness, in the list of dependants to be appointe.d on compossionate ground, cannot be said to be based on artg rational basis, rather this is wh<lllg unfair ctnd absolutelg unjust. It is also not basecl on anA intelltgible diJferentia, and frustrates the uery object the sclreme for compassionate appointment. These i.ntmediate blood relati.ons cannot be denied the L'enefit of compassionate appointment, if they are othen-ui:;et entitled for tlrc sanne, simplg because of the fact that theg mag be entitled to the compensation under the tuorkman compen.sation benefits admissible under the Wrkmen's Cornpensation Act, as they falt u,tithin the deftnition of 'depenclent', giuen in Section 2(1)(d) of the said AcL

26. Eue-rt othenaise, in uieu-t of the law laid doun bg the Full Ben.ch. of Calcutta High Court, in Purnima l)cr-s's case (supra). tuhile giuing LPA No.617 of 2017 Wth D)A No.457 of 2A17 16 ' interpretation to the term dependertt in tenns of the ,\CWA ltseLf, that for the purpose of a soieme for compassiona.te appointment euery such member of the familg o.f the emplogee u-tho is dependent on the: earnings of such r:,mplogee for his / her suruiual must be considered to belortq to 'a class', and their exclusion cannot ite:- onlg on the ground of gender or maital status, ue c,.re of the considered. uieLu that this decision Lrus a bindingl effect on the respondents, as this decision utas rendered tn cose of compassionate appointment in coal compang itself, uthich tuas again gouerned bg the NCWA itsetf . This decbion uos again folloued bg a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court also, in case of the present respondents themselues, i'e , Central Coalfietds Ltd., in Hemanti Deui's case (supra)'

27. For the forgoiftg reasons, the respondent Central Coal Fietds Ltd., is d-irected not onlA to consider the cloims of the appellants for being appointed on compassionate ground in accordance uith tow, but also to take steps for inclusion of the porents ond sister of the tuorkman dging in harness, in the definition of dependents under Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA. We would like to moke it clear that consideration of the appeltants for appointmenl on the compassionate ground, shatl be subiect to fulftllment of the other conditions necessary for such appointment, bA th'e appellants. "

15. As per the law laid down in the above case, though the deceased employee has not included the names of his other dependants in the service register, the petitioner's case can be considered for compassionate appointment' provided the other conditions are fulfilled' 1,6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ C.No.60881 of 2O15 and batch, dated 04.12'2015' t2 1 17 . In the above case, the Uttar Pradesh Flecruitment of Dependents of Government Servalts D,1ing-in-Harness Rules, 197-1 have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and regulate t.he grant of compassionate appointment to the membeis of the family of a governmenl servant who dies in harness. The Rules define the expression "familv" to include, anlong others, "unmarried daughters and unmarried adopted daughters,. The Rules also bring sons and adopted sons within the ambit of a family. The eligibility of a son or ,aCopted son is not conditrr>nerl b-r. marital status. The chalk:nge in these proceedings is to stipulate that only an unmarried daughter falls rn,ithin tl-re definition of the expression "family,,. As a consequence of the condition, a married daughter ceases to fall u,ithin thc lamily of a deceased government servant to seek compasstonate appointment. iB. On thr: above said aspect, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petitions stating as follou,s :- l3 "In conclusion, ue hoLd thdt the excLusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression ffamily" in Rute 2 (c) of the DAingin-Hantess Rrzles is illegat cand unconstitutionat, being uiolatiue of Articles 14 and 15 of the Co nstitution. We, accordingtg, strike down the uord 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iir) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules. In consequence' u)e direct that the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment shall be reconsidered. We clarifg that the competent authoitg tuoutd be at libertA to consider the claim for compassionote appointment on the basis of all the releuant facts and circttmstances and the petltioners sLnll not be excluded from consideration only on the ground of their maitat status- The utrit petitions shat| accordingly, stand allotued. "

19. From the above judgment, it is clear that the married daughter cannot be excluded from the ambit of the expression "family", and her case cannot be denied only on the grounds of her marital status. However, her claim for compassionate appointment can be considered, if she fulfrls the relevant conditions issued by the Government from time to t1me.

20. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court 1n t4 W.A.No.700 of 2018, dated 29.11.2018, pertaining to the compasslorlate apporntment

21. In thr: abovc case, the District Collector. Karimnagar, vide letter daterd 2!).O5.20 17, returned the proposal of the District Collector, Adilabad, for ,t()mpassionare appointment of Ihe respondent on the ground that his father had retired from service as a Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector and was drawing service prension. The District Collector, Karimnagar, concluded tha.t in terms of the Circular IVIemo, dated 24.O3.2012, a pe:nsion would have to be treated as an 'earning' and a penl;ioner had to be treated as an 'earning member' and tl-rerefore, the respondent could not avail the benefit of <:ompassionate appointment as his other parent received service pension.

22. The Divisron Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeal b-r, obser-ving zrs follou,s:- "Be it rtotetd that the delag in considering hk case for compas::ionote ctppointment on meits is utholly attributoble to tle authoities themselues. Ilouteuer, as thc tnotler of the respondent exph ed on 19.01.i,O16 ancl more'than two and half yeot-s haue t5 elapsed, the financiol condition of the respondent and his family u;ould again haue to be examined afresfL The respondent shall therefore file an affidauit d.etailing the ftnancial condition of the familg ' u.therebg he can still ossert a ight to appointment on compassionate grounds ouing to financial penury. The authoities shall ueifg such claim.and if he is otherutise found to be eligible, theg shall extend' to him tle benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds. Thi.s exercise shall be completed expeditiouslA and in anA euent, utithin tuo montlt-s from the date of receipt of the respondent's affidauit'"

23. In the present case, the respondents did not reject the petitioners' case on the ground of service pension, moreover, they denied the petitioners' case on certain grounds, which are stated supra. Hence, the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case'

24. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of this Court in K'PADMAJA's case (l supra) stating that the married daughters are also entitled for compassionate appointment'

25. In the above case, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a compassionate appointment for a f' l6 married daughter. The petitioners stated tl'r:rt unless the married daught.er dependents on her mother / lather, she is not entitled to ;rn appointment on compassionate grounds As per thc instructions of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Cit] , the applicant is residing wittr her husband in the house o1- her late father along u,ith ht:r' mother and both the applicant and her husband are unemployed arrd financially u,eal<; the Tribunal recording a finding that there is no reason to reject the claim of the applicant and allou,ed thc O.A. r,r,hile setting aside tl-re impugned proceedings therein vide R.C.No.LeO /tr3l64l),r20 10, dated

25.11.2O10 The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petrtion confirming the order of the Tribunal 26 . In th e: abovc case, the married daugh ter and her husbald lir e u,ith the deceased employee's ',vife, and both are unemployeers. But, in the present case, the petitioners have not dis<:losed the financial status of the 2"d petitioner's husbanrl, rvhether he is employe'cl or not and whether thev are living vvith the deceased ernployee's wife or separalcll'. Therefore, the above Di'rjsion Bench 11 judgment of this Court is not applicable to the case on hand.

27. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the 1.t petitioner has not submitted Financial Status Certificate of family members and the 2nd petitioner, who is a married daughter of the deceased employee, has also not submitted the Financiai Status Certificate of her husband and also the details with regard to the employment of her husband. The married daughter is not eligible for compassionate appointment as per the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government Therefore, the 3'd respondent has rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the case of the 2"a petitioner for compassionate appointment.

28. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court considers that it is just and proper to direct the l"t petitioner to make a fresh representation before the ! 18 respondent authorities seeking compensation appointment to the 2"d ire l itioner.

29. Therc'lbre, the 1"' petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities seeking compassionate appointmen t to the 2",t petitioner by enclosing the relevant documents, including the financial status of the 2nd petitioner's hustrerrtd, within a period of tlrree weeks from the date of receiltr: of a copy of this order Upon making such representation, the respondents zrrc dit-ected to reconsider the r.a,se of the 2",t petitioner lor compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders rn accordance with law, u-ithin a period of eight weeks thereafter.

30. Accorrlir-rgiy, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs Pending miscellaneous petitions, if an.,r, shall stand closed. One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHY REGISTRAR l\ \ '- . ^\DFPUTY V " decrror.r oFFrcER

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secreterait Br.rilding, Secretary Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City Police, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. I \ 4 The Station House Officer' District Kanchan Bagh Police Station' Ranga Reddy : +lj,T.g?rd:tCretary, Union of lndia, Ministry or Law, Justice and companv - ntiiirs, New Delhi ra Advocates Association Library, High Court for the 7 The Secretary, Telangat ' st"i" oir"rang'nu at HYderabad' 8. One CC to SRI' KALVALA SANJEEV Advocate [OPUCI o Two CCs to GP for Home' High Court for the State of Telangana at - HYderabad [OUT]

10.Two CD CoPies KKS BS w f ( .-.''.'il-' 5 r ''i r. -:(Hi. 7 ) -' 7 -ot , 0 7 [Pn 2025 s;'lIcB 1<) lo. -: HIGH COURT DATED:0310412025 ORDER WP.No.23651 of 2023 ./, : it, '< //,;' l, .' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4 t \