Telangana High Court
Nawapeta Meena vs The State Of Telangana, on 30 July, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.14080 OF 2023
Between:
Smt Nawapeta Meena
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana & Others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 30.07.2025
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes.
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
________________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.14080 OF 2023
% 30.07.2025
Between:
# Smt Nawapeta Meena ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana & Others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner Smt.
: Rachana Reddy,
learned Senior Designated Counsel
^Counsel for Respondents Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Services-III
? Cases Referred:
(i) 2013 (4) ALD 501 (DB)
(ii) (1979) 4 SCC 260
(iii) Writ Petition No. 25366 of 2008
(iv) Judgment dated 20.12.2016 in CWP No.4609 of
2021)
(v) 2019 (3) STC 570
(vi) 2015 (5) CTC 344
3
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.14080 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Smt. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior
Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Services-III, appearing on behalf of respondents.
2. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition seeking the prayer as under:
“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus,
declaring the action of the respondents in issuing
Letter vide Lr.No.A2/1404/2022 Dt.08.06.2022,
thereby rejecting proposal of District Welfare
Officer for providing employment to the Petitioner
under compassionate grounds, in spite of enclosing
all the relevant documents, as illegal, arbitrary, in
violation of Article 21 under the Constitution of
India, and in violation of principles of natural
Justice and consequently direct the respondents to
accept the petitioners appointment application and
provide employment to the Petitioner for the post
of Junior Assistant and pass…”
4
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the
averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the
present writ petition, is as follows:
The petitioner is the daughter of Late Smt. Navapeta
Chandramani, who worked as a Contract Supervisor
(Extension Officer Grade-II) in the ICDS Project, Jogipet,
Medak District, for about 7 years until her demise on
23.06.2021 due to cancer. After her death, the petitioner,
being the elder child and legal heir, applied for a
compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant in the ICDS
or any other suitable department. The petitioner submitted
all necessary documents including NOC from other legal
heirs, income and unemployment certificates, and
educational qualifications. The District Welfare Officer
forwarded the proposal vide letter Lr.No.54/A1/2022 dated
19.04.2022 to the District Collector, but it was returned
stating to take necessary action as per rules in vogue.
Thereafter, the application of the petitioner was rejected
vide Lr.No.A2/1404/2022 dated 08.06.2022 by the
respondents without proper consideration of petitioner’s
5
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
case. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD:
(A) The relevant portion of the order impugned
vide Lr.No.A2/1404/2022 dated 08.06.2022 issued by
the Collector, Sangareddy District to the District
Welfare Officer, WCD & SC Department, Sangareddy
District, is extracted under:
“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 maybe considered for
compassionate appointment, provided she is
dependent on the deceased Government
employee.
Where the deceased employee does not have
any male child but leaves behind him a married
daughter and an unmarried minor daughter, the
choice of selecting one of them for appointment
under the social security scheme shall be left to
the mother.
6
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023But, in the instant case, Smt. N.Meena
D/o. Late Smt. M.Chandramani is a married
daughter and the deceased employee have a
male child as per the Family Member
Certificate Issued by the Tahsildar, Andole
vide Mee Seva Certificate
No.FAMC022100885183, dated: 04.09.2021.
Therefore, the proposals received
through the reference cited are returned
herewith with a request to take necessary
action into the matter as per rules in vogue.”
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-
5. Smt. Rachana Reddy, learned Senior Designated
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that
the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment
on account of the death of her mother, late Smt. M.
Chandramani, Supervisor Grade-II, Officer of the CDPO
ICDS Project, Sangareddy District, who expired on
23.06.2021 while in service, was returned unilaterally
without conducting any enquiry into the petitioner’s
eligibility solely on the ground that the petitioner is the
married daughter of the deceased employee, and further,
that the deceased employee has a male child, as reflected in
the family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar,
7
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
Andole, vide Mee Seva Certificate No. FAMC022100885183,
dated 04.09.2021, particularly as per Circular Memo No.
60681/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 12.08.2003, which is arbitrary
and illegal.
6. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of the respondents submits that, as per Circular Memo No.
60681/Ser.A/2003-1 dated 12.08.2003, the petitioner is not
entitled to the relief as sought for in the present writ
petition as the said Memo clearly stipulates that
compassionate appointment may be considered only if the
deceased employee does not have a male child. In the
present case, the family member certificate dated
04.09.2021 clearly indicates the existence of a male child in
the family, hence the petitioner’s application was returned.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that, though there is a male child in the family, yet
a No Objection Certificate (NOC) had been duly enclosed,
wherein the male child had given his consent for
compassionate appointment to be granted to the petitioner
herein, and though the petitioner is a married daughter,
8
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
petitioner had been supporting the family, and therefore,
her application for compassionate appointment has to be
considered and the same cannot be returned unilaterally at
the threshold itself merely on the ground that the petitioner
is a married daughter and that there is a male child in the
family.
8. This Court opines that the impugned order dated
08.06.2022, passed by the Collector, Sangareddy District,
returning the proposals submitted by the District Welfare
Officer, WCD & SC Department, Sangareddy District, for
providing employment under compassionate ground to the
petitioner, who is a married daughter of the deceased
employee, is arbitrary and is issued hastily in a routine
mechanical manner, without application of mind, without
conducting any enquiry, without examining the petitioner’s
application and the relevant documents submitted by the
petitioner in support of petitioner’s claim for compassionate
appointment solely on the ground that there is a male
member in the family and that the petitioner is a married
daughter, without even affording an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner, hence the rejection of application
9
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
by Respondent No.4 is in clear violation of the principles of
natural justice, and unsustainable.
9. This Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for
consideration of petitioner’s application for compassionate
appointment, after due enquiry to be conducted by the
respondents herein duly examining the relevant documents
submitted by the petitioner in support of the petitioner’s
case and arrive at a conclusion regarding the petitioner’s
eligibility for compassionate appointment, in accordance
with the applicable scheme and the rules in force. However,
in the present case, admittedly as borne on record no such
exercise had been undertaken by respondent No.4. Insofar
as the second ground raised by the respondents that there
is a male child in the family is concerned, this Court opines
that respondent No.4 ought to have considered the fact, as
borne on record, that it is the specific case of the petitioner
that all the family members have issued No Objection
Certificates and have expressed their willingness for
providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
10
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
In so far as the ground that the petitioner is a married
daughter and therefore petitioner’s request for
compassionate appointment cannot be considered is
concerned this Court opines that the said plea is untenable
and rejected in view of the observations in the various
Judgments extracted hereunder.
10. A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court
reported in 2013 (4) ALD 501 (DB) dealing with a
situation where compassionate appointment was
denied to a married daughter on the ground that she
did not place any material to show that she was
dependent on her father in “Commissioner of Police
and others v K.Padmaja” at para 8 and 9, observed as
follows:
8) As evident from the scheme notified by
the Government, the dependent children of a
deceased Government servant who dies in harness
are eligible for compassionate appointment to the
Ministerial posts, such as Clerks, Typists, Steno-
typists etc. When a doubt had arisen whether a
married daughter can be considered to extend the
benefit of compassionate appointment, it is
11
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
clarified in the orders issued by the Government
itself in G.O.Ms. No. 350, dated 30.07.1999 and
further orders dated 08.10.2003 issued in memo
No. 116417/Ser.A/2003-1, that married
daughters are entitled for consideration for
appointment on compassionate grounds,
subject to eligibility as per the scheme
notified in this regard. A certificate issued by
the Spl. Grade Deputy Collector, Ranga Reddy
District is placed on record certifying the financial
position of the applicant as unsound. Even in the
report submitted by the Station House Officer,
Ghatkesar, in clear terms it is stated that the
applicant and her husband were living in the house
of the deceased Sri K. Ramachandra Raju and were
also taking care of widow of Sri K. Ramachandra
Raju.
9. Basing on the additional material placed
by the learned counsel for the petitioners, before
this Court to-day, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for petitioners that the applicant and her
husband were staying separately with their own
income. A perusal of report dated 15.06.2013
makes it clear that the husband of the applicant is
an unemployee. Even with regard to income of the
applicant, it is clearly stated that she is staying in
the outhouse of house bearing No. 2-2-12/6, D.D.
12
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad and is eking
livelihood by sewing clothes. There is no other
material to reject the claim of the applicant as she
is not having definite income of her own and she
was dependant on her late father. Even if the
applicant is residing in a separate house, that by
itself, is not a ground to reject the claim of
appointment. So far as the income of the applicant
is concerned, it is proved that she is not having
any independent income to live on her own and
she is also taking care of her mother (widow of the
deceased employee). No valid reasons were
recorded by the authorities, to reject the
claim of the applicant for compassionate
appointment. Even by way of counter, no
reasons were added to support the order
passed by the authorities. Except the contention
of the petitioners that the respondent is getting
some income by sewing clothes and residing
separately in an out-house, and, a vague report
placed on record today, there is no other material
to show that she is having definite income on her
own. Even as per the said applicant’s report,
husband is stated to be unemployed. Yet another
defence is taken by the learned counsel that as the
wife of the deceased is getting family pension, the
applicant is not entitled for compassionate
appointment. But the same cannot be accepted.
13
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
Merely because family pension is being paid to the
wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to
deprive the benefit of compassionate appointment
under this scheme notified by the Government for
the children of the deceased who died in harness.”
11. In “C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India“
MANU/SC/0580/1979 : (1979) 4 SCC 260, the
Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No. 6 observed as
hereunder:
6. At the first blush this rule is in defiance
of Article 16. If a married man has a right, a
married woman, other things being equal,
stands on no worse footing. This misogynous
posture is a hangover of the masculine culture of
manacling the weaker sex forgetting how our
struggle for national freedom was also a battle
against woman’s thraldom. Freedom is indivisible,
so is Justice. That our founding faith enshrined in
Articles 14 and 16 should have been tragically
ignored vis-a-vis half of India’s humanity viz. our
women, is a sad reflection on the distance between
Constitution in the book and law in action. And if
the executive as the surrogate of Parliament,
makes rules in the teeth of Part III especially when
high political office, even diplomatic assignment
14
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023has been filled by women, the inference of diehard
allergy to gender parity is inevitable.
12. In “N. Uma vs. The Director of Elementary
School Education & others“, Writ Petition No. 25366
of 2008, decided on 22.09.2017, the High Court of
Madras has observed as hereunder:
“13. All the above judgments have clearly
observed that the State Government should not
discriminate inspite of giving compassionate
appointment to the sons and daughters of the
deceased employee. When the Government is
giving appointment to the married sons, they
should not deny to give employment to the
married daughters. But in this case, only on the
ground of marriage of this petitioner, who is
the daughter of the deceased mother, is
denied by citing marriage as a reason and
such action of the State is against the very
scheme of the Constitution. The preamble of
the constitution ensures equality of status and
opportunity to all its citizens. The Government
should not discriminate or deprive to woman on
the ground of marriage, while the same is not a
restriction in the case of a man.
15
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
14. Admittedly, in this case, the deceased
employee has died during the course of the
employment by leaving her two daughters viz., M.
Manjula and M. Indra. Infact, the elder daughter of
the deceased employee by viz., M. Manjula is a
mentally retarded person and this petitioner, who
is the second daughter of the deceased employee
should take care of the first daughter. But, without
considering all the above Government Orders and
the judgments of this Court passed in the above
writ petitions and the pathetic condition of the
petitioner’s family, the respondent mechanically
passed the present impugned order by stating that
the petitioner is a married woman and hence she is
not entitled to the compassionate appointment.
Again, the view of the respondent is totally illegal
and he had not applied his mind. In all the above
judgments cited supra, this Court directed the
Government Authorities to give employment
to the married daughter without
discrimination but this respondent purposely
rejected the request of the petitioner on the
sole ground that she is a married daughter of
the deceased employee.”
13. In “Mamata Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
& others, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at
Shimla” (judgment dated 20.12.2016 in CWP No.4609
16
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
of 2021), in a similar issue which arose with regard to
non consideration of married daughter for
compassionate appointment, observed as under:
“True it is that under the Constitution of
India it is impermissible for State to draw any
assumption to use marriage as a rationale for
practicing an act of hostile discrimination by
denying benefit(s) to a daughter, when equivalent
benefits are being granted to a son in terms of
compassionate appointment. Marriage neither
alters the relationship between the married
daughters with her parents, nor creates
severance of relationship. A son remains a
son and his marriage does not alter or severe
his relation with his parents, likewise, a
daughter is always a daughter to her parents,
her marriage also does not alter or severe her
relation with her parents. If, the State even
draws a thin line of distinction based on gender,
then that line has to withstand the test of Articles
15 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste,
sex or place of birth. In the instant case, the
classificatory distinction, as drawn by the
respondents, debarring the married daughter
17
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023is, could not withstand the test of Article 15
of the Constitution of India.”
14. In “Udham Singh Nagar District Cooperative
Bank Ltd. & another vs. Anjula Singh and others”
MANU/UC/0459/2019 : 2019 (3) STC 570
(Uttarakhand) : (2019) 2 UPLB EC1, the High Court of
Uttarakhand (Full Bench) held as hereunder:
“non-inclusion of a “married daughter” in
the definition of a “family”, under rule 2(c) of the
1974 Rules and the note below Regulation 104 of
the 1975 Regulations, thereby denying her the
opportunity of being considered for compassionate
appointment, even though she was dependent on
the Government servant at the time of his death,
is discriminatory and is in violation of Articles 14,
15 and 16 in Part III of the Constitution of India.
Resultantly, a “married daughter” was also held to
fall within the inclusive definition of “family” of the
deceased Government servant, for the purpose of
being provided compassionate appointment under
the 1974 Rules and the 1975 Regulations. Thus,
the judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the
present case.”
18
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
15. In the case of R. Govindammal Vs. Principal
Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal
Programme Department, Chennai in
MANU/TN/2247/2015 : 2015 (5) CTC 344, the learned
Judge had directed the first respondent to provide
compassionate appointment to the petitioner, as she is
otherwise eligible, without reference to marriage. In the said
order, the learned Judge issued a direction to the Chief
Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Government, to suitably modify
the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 165, Labour and
Employment Department, dated 30.08.2010 in the light of
the observations made above.
16. A bare perusal of the record indicates a clear
recommendation made by the District Welfare Officer
WCD and SC Department, Sangareddy to the District
Collector Sangareddy District vide letter
No.54/A1/2022, which specifically refers to the
relevant certificates of the petitioner i.e., (i)check slip
for compassionate appointment, (ii) Educational
qualification certificate( SSC, Inter, Master of
Pharmacy) (iii) Birth Certificate, (iv) No Earning
19
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
Member Certificate, (v) No Property certificate, (vi)
Unemployment certificate (vii) legal heir certificate
(viii) Death certificate (ix) Local cadre certificate
(Residential) (x) Financial Status Certificate (xi) No
Objection Certificate, submitted by the petitioner to
the respondents, but however the said relevant
certificates of the petitioner, who is the married
daughter of the deceased employee had not been
examined by the District Collector, Sangareddy, nor
considered, nor any enquiry conducted by the
respondents pertaining to the genuinity of the said
certificates submitted by the petitioner herein and a
decision on merits admittedly had not been arrived at
in so far as the eligibility of the petitioner as per the
scheme of the compassionate appointment is
concerned, and the request of the petitioner had been
returned by the Collector, Sangareddy vide the
impugned certificate, dated 08.06.2022, vide letter
No.A2/1404/2022, on the ground that the petitioner
is the married daughter and the deceased employee
had a male child unilaterally, erroneously, hastily,
20
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
mechanically without application of mind, without
taking into consideration, the very object of the
scheme of the compassionate appointment.
17. 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 family. The said relief
should not be denied on flimsy grounds defeating the very
object of the compassionate appointment.
21
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
18. This Court in the light of discussion and
conclusion arrived at para Nos.5 to 17 of the present
order opines that the respondents have a bounden
duty to reconsider the request of the petitioner for
providing compassionate appointment in accordance
to law and take a decision accordingly.
19. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case,
(b) The submissions made by the learned Senior
Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Services-III,
appearing on behalf of respondents,
(c) The order impugned vide
Lr.No.A2/1404/2022 dated 08.06.2022 issued
by the Collector, Sangareddy District
addressed to the District Welfare Officer, WCD
& SC Department, Sangareddy District,
22
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023
(d) The letter of the 3rd respondent dated
19.04.2022 addressed to the 4th respondent,
(e) The observations of the Apex Court and other
various High Courts as referred and extracted
above,
The writ petition is allowed. The order impugned
vide Lr.No.A2/1404/2022 dated 08.06.2022 issued by
the 4th respondent i.e., the Collector, Sangareddy
District addressed to the District Welfare Officer,
WCD & SC Department, Sangareddy District, is set
aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent
No.4 for reconsideration of the request of the
petitioner for providing compassionate appointment
to the petitioner herein duly taking into consideration
the observations in the Judgments of the Apex Court
and other High Courts in the various Judgments
referred to and extracted above, duly examining all
the relevant documents submitted by the petitioner in
support of the petitioner’ case which had been
forwarded through proposals vide Letter
No.54/A1/2022 dated 19.04.2022 of the District
23
SN,J
W.P.No.14080_2023Welfare Officer, WCD and SC Department,
Sangareddy, addressed to the 4th respondent herein
after conducting due enquiry as per the existing
scheme of compassionate appointment and the rules
in force as on date in accordance to law, in conformity
with principles of natural justice by providing an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner,
within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order and pass appropriate
orders pertaining to the request of the petitioner to
provide employment to the petitioner under
Compassionate grounds and duly communicate the
decision to the petitioner herein. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
30.07.2025
Note: Issue CC by today
L.R.Copy to be marked
b/o LPD/VJB
[ad_1]
Source link