Ele In lr ctor of Jma v. The menta rv School Dir Education-&-.others Writ Petition No'

Heard Sri Mohd. Azhar, learned counsel representing Sri Bodla Sandeep Kumar, tearned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_ff appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2.7 u nder: n r c the o t e !n a er ".....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more pa rticularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the a ction oF the 4th respondent in not considering the petitioner,s application for compassionate appointment vide Lr. Rc. No.Al/I5/2027 dated 08.03.202I, in the place of petitioner,s mother who passed away in service on 10.L2.2020 as ex_facie illegal, highly unjust, improper, arbitrary, discriminatory, total non-application of mind and contrary to various Judicial precedents in the subject matter and consequenfly direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to a suitabre post on compassionate grounds, in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon,ble Court 2 rrp -32296 fit and proper in the circumstanct:s of the SN..I 2021 i I I mav c(e rl case., . ' ^

3. The r e s ) of the petitioner' in brief is that :;l e is the only daughte,.arcl :'lle legal heir of late Sd' Mahaboob IJe':' who was working as ;lr i)ffice Attender in the RWS&S Depart-n(':nt and had passed awr/ r'/hile in service on 70 '12'2020 ' Petitlln'3r's mother was appoi'rt€ : on compassionate grounds on l5 1i ' 1998' The a ; living with her mother under the siarne roof' along petitioner with her trrre -rployed husband and two minor childr:lni and the her mother' family wa s r.rtirely dependent on the income o' Following tt:,. mother's death' the petitiont:r compassicra r: appointment on 0B'01'2021' citit't11 hardship irnc rlependence on the deceased emplo)'e(r ' However' the resportrlr lt No.4 rejected the application of the ptrtitioner vide Al/l5l2)2l, dated 08'03'2021 stating that the Lr. Rc. I'l :'. ineligible on the ground that she i:'; a married per Memo No.406 dated 20'03'2004' 'r\ggrieved by applied for her financial petitioner i! daughter, ar the same, tt ( petitioner filed the present writ petitiln' PE RUS ED1 HE RECORD:

4. I-he__- r n resoond g1'; 4 vid e t1 s of th L Rc. o.A 1 2A2L -l- ) o o 2 1i sue ap Dli tm n f e c etitio D d r e SN,J wP_32296 2021 com Dass iona te "With reference to the above subject cited, Smt.Sk.Nasreen Begum, Wo.Shabeeruddin who has been applied for compassionate appointment and death benefits as the dependent of the deceased employee i.e., Smt. Sd. Mahaboob Bee, Office Subordinate, MB Intra Division, Kothagudem who was expired while in service on 70-12-2020 and the same proposals has been submitted to the Superintending Engineer, MB Circle,. Khammam vide reference 2nd & 3.d cited. Though the reference 4th cited, the Superintending Engineer, MR Circle, Khammam while returning the proposal of Smt. Sk. Nasreen Begum, W/o. Shabeeruddin who applied for compassionate appointment to the married daughter of the deceased employee Smt. Sd.Mahaboob Eee, Ex. Office Subordinate of this office stating as per G.O.Ms.No.350, dated: 30-07-1999 Gen. Admn. (Ser_A) Department. "In such cases Government hereby clarify that 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 $ 4 SN..I \\p _32296-2021 fo- ( ()mpassionate appointment, prorii<letl she is de:pe 'dent on the deceased Government em:>loyee and sr ir j, :t to satisfying, the other corrdi:ions and instr .r ::tions issued on the scheme from timr: tr) time' The Government has issued clarifir:ation vide n er r; No.406/10/A'1/Admn'II-2004 daterl '10-03-2004 o' I tcretary to Government (FR) Finance (Admn'II) D€ p )rtment for considering married Ca 'rghter for crn lassionate aPPointment that: "Once marriage is performed' a Caur'lhter is not c€rp indent on her father/mother even if she is un- (rrn oyee or her husband is un-employt:e' A married rltru : hter is dependent on her father/nrc'th:r if she is lil' 1r1 with her father/mother when her htrst:and deserts In all such Irr:r :r disapPears for years together or <lir:s' left anY {:as:':;, the husband should not lrtrvt )-c:,erty/income to his wife and the mar-r ecl daughter is ;,)l )l'/ dependent on the support provitled by her 'trt rt:r/mother and is an un-dmployee' In view of the above, the proposals :'ubmitted for co npassionate appointment by Srr't' Sk Nasreena Eie : um W/o. Sk. Shabeeruddin' D/o' Sn.rt' Late Sd' 11t haboob Bee. Office Subordinate who t:xf ired while in s e ..,ice on lO-12-2O20 is not conside red by the 5iL perintending Engineer, MB Circle' Khamrnam and the sra le information is furnished'" ( - DIscusSION AND coN LUSI ON: 5 SN,J w 32296 202t

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the only reason For rejecting the petitioner,s request for compassionate appointment is that she is the married daughter oF the deceased employee, Smt. Sk. Mahaboob Bee, and not a dependent on the deceased employee, since once marriage is performed, a daughter is not a dependent on her father/mother even if she is un-employee or her husband is an un_employee.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is ample evidence on record, filed as material documents along with the present writ petition i.e., Exs. p.3 to P.72, indicating that the petitioner was dependent on the deceased employee, Smt. Sk. Mahaboob Bee. However, Respondent No.4 mechanically rejected the petitioner.s request for compassionate appointment, without application of mind, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, and without properly examining the evidence supporting the petitioner,s claim of dependency without conducting any enquiry as per the rules in force. ;t 6 SN,J ,tr 32796 2021 7 Ele In lr ctor of Jma vs. The menta rv School Dir Education-&-.others ' Writ Petition No' 253-69 of 2OO8' of M,adra sh as decided ol!- - observed a9- h ere u nd er: the Hiqh Court o9.20 L7,

22. lhe above judgments have clearly obrs:rr"ed that the I \/ernment !hould not discriminate i''rs;oil.e of giving ;ionate appointment to the sons and d'rughters of r:ased employee' When the Governnlerrt is giving ent to the married sons, they shoull rot deny to 1:loyment to the married daughters' Btlt rn this.case' ,ne gtound of marriage of this petitic)rer' who is the , oi the deceased mother, is deniecl by citing :r as a reason and such action of the Sta'e is against / scheme of the Constitution. The pr:arnble of the equality of status and opportunity to all tion "ntrt"t t,ns. The Government should not disc riminate or l:o woman on the ground of marriz ge:, while the '-tot a restriction in the case of a man ' "13. /\l State C comF)as the l -'r aPPoirlt give en on y cn da ug l'i.t marria( the'/,lr constitt its r:i': : d e Prit'e Sam'l l! 1,4. ,1r rnittedly, in this case, the deceased errrployee has iieO :r ing the course of the employment lly leaving her f*o,1"-,gniers viz., M. Maniula and M Ind-a lnfact' the jil ilignter of the deceased employee by viz'' M' Manjula i. u n,i ntilly retarded person and this petitioner, who is the "rL" r"..r,: ,laughter of the deceased employee shot'rld take care li Ui,, l.tt "daughter. But, without conslderin{l all the above Cou=-|. rrent Orders and the judgments of thi; (:ourt passed 'il-ttx, ,troue writ petitions and the pathetic condition of the .,"ii, i,,, cr's family, the respondent mechani(:e lly passed the [gs[ -g impuoned order bv stating that-t:!'Lpetlllsncr Ei=[,Jrriea woman and trence stre is nqt entitled to ii*tle it p"tt-r"t" "p""i.t-"tu Again, th€ view of the ed his mind' r*;;:Eit " t"tatv 'tes"l i;-, i lre above judgments cited supra, this C'lurt directed th" :; ,u"rn.ent Authorities to give employrlent to the marr e I daughter without discrimination but thi'; respondent purllos : ly rejected the request of the petiticner on the sole groirrrc that- she is a married daughter of tre deceased emJllc'r':e, .nd he had no! 1ro] 7 SN,J wp_32296 202t

8. The object of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to support the family of the deceased government servant, who dies in harness. The aim and object of the policy for compassionate appointment is to provide financial support to the family of the deceased employee, who left the dependents in distress and penury. The core aim of the object of providing compassionate appointment is to relieve the family from financial sufferings being faced for the sudden demise of the Bread Winner of the family. The sufferings being faced by the dependents of the deceased employee for sudden demise of the Bread Winner could be solved for some extent by providing compassionate appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the famiry. The said rerief shourd not be denied on flimsy grounds defeating the very object of the compassionate a ppo intm ent.

9. In the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.16242 of 2Ot3 dated 26.06.2013 it was held that married daughter is entifled for appointment on compassionate grounds subject to her eligibility.

10. A bare perusal of the order impugned of the 4th respondent dated 08.O3.2021 very ctearly indicates that the 8 SN,J r,'o 12296 2021 4th respondt:rt failed to conduct any enquiry pertaining to examining petitioner's entitlement for getting compassionill tl appointment especially as a married the impugned order of rejection of daughter ar d petitioner'si request had been issued mechanically' unalaterally t^ ithout application of mind'

11. This (:,orrrt opines that a married daughter <:annot be excluded I rom consideration for conrpassionate appointment solely on the ground that she is rnarried and hence not r lependent on the deceased employee and therefore is r ot entitled for compassionate appointment' L2. This lb urt ooines that the reso ondent No.4 cannot a ssionate reiect the etiti ner f rco f the r vide the tmDu ned proceed inqs dated AD ointm ent O8.O3.2O21--- 9-.n the oround that the petitionej,- iclngl dece ased t. rs not deoend nt on th marr ed emDlovee (l ervr n fu her th t rrlaqe ts n1 tde oendenr t dauoh r oerformed__- r husEA-nlUS father/molh,: un-emDlovee andt herefore. is not entitled for con d u<:tin q any ment, without aoooint comDassr rrarte on her f 9 r n arni n etitio nert,or comoass ion ate a D oIn t e n n d a r t e t I n o r n t sid r o s arbitr n iU d r 3 n Ta n SN,J wp_32296 2021 t e n a re the s ei t a h h e a n ri r n e a) b) c) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, The submissions made by the tearned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_ ff, appearing on behalf of the respondents and, The observations in the Judgments (referred to and extracted above), \ \ The Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the respondent No.4 vide Lr. Rc.No.AtllS / 2O2t dated O8.O3.2O21 is set aside and the respondent No.4 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner dated accordance to law in conformity with the principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petationer duly taking into O8.O1.2O21 in 10 SN,J \!f I llqh l0ll I ::.,:':.::1.J": consideratiorl :he entire material available on re€ord to be placed bv ':t.r petitioner o*:* indicating l:h tr petitioner being marrll dependent.n the deceased emproyee and pass appropriate orders withir 'a period of four(4) weeks from thr3 date of of this order and duly communicate the receipt of a decision to t ne petitioner herein' However' there shall be no order a!;1o costs' "opy petitions' if arry' pending in As a ;r ct,.rel' the miscellaneous the Writ P l'-il ln shall also stand closed ' ,TTRUE COPYI/ SD,.MOHD. I IL DEPUTY REG TRAR SECTION OFFICER rhe Princ p r Secretary' D"P-'lilT:::Xlgation and CAD Secretariat' tilsrri+;*irslmlriisst'5fl $'5ifu ;p,"E;il#f{fl",;#", *t-ifr Ifl i;eri,:ffiffif#'iHEffi t#,'*{*:""' s""tft*,i;hrrfiI+"+.ff Uyffi:#,fl 3ffi :u:iii;::r,eansanaa, Y;; 6i;.;i ) GP FoR sER' Hvderao ac [OU I I T\i7o Ct) C )oies I To L 2 J 4 5 6 7 PSK, BS HIGH COUFII DATED:2ZIC)II 12025 ORDER WP.No.3229(t ot 2021 CC TODAY , 1t --)c \ \-i tl.1o {,)\ t{8. ST4 1 rO s( l0 JUN ilm o [:5r.l,.1 1 HL, \-: * ALLOWING 1'HE WRIT PETITION wtTHouT c:osTs ,/o 4z 6