The Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared that the state policy regarding compassionate appointments for married daughters is both illegal and unjust.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court deemed the state government’s policy, which complicates the process for married daughters to secure appointments on compassionate grounds, as “illegal and unjust.” The Court granted the Writ Petition submitted by a married woman who sought to be appointed in place of her father, who had served as a sweeper at a temple prior to his passing, leaving behind two daughters. Her request for a compassionate appointment was denied due to her inability to provide a divorce decree or a dependency certificate. According to a 1999 Government Order, a married daughter may only qualify for a compassionate appointment if she has no siblings, the spouse of the deceased is unwilling to accept the appointment, and she was financially dependent on the deceased prior to their death, along with other conditions that may be stipulated from time to time.
A Single Judge Bench led by Justice K Manmadha Rao stated that it seems illegal and unfair for the State Government to include a clause in the eligibility criteria that discriminates against married daughters. He emphasized that both sons and daughters remain part of their parents’ family for life. Advocate D.V. Sasidhar represented the petitioner-woman, while Advocate K. Madhav Reddy represented the respondents. The petitioner-woman explained that she was abandoned by her husband and relied entirely on her father until his passing. Her request to the respondents was denied because she could not provide a divorce decree from a competent court or proof of her dependency on her father before he died.
The Court observed that there are no similar eligibility rules for sons, whether they are married or not, and that married daughters face discrimination just because they are married. “Discriminating against a married daughter simply because she is married, while there is no such restriction for a married son, seems unfair and biased.” The Court referenced decisions from various High Courts, including those in Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Allahabad, Madras, and Bombay, regarding the eligibility of married daughters for compassionate appointments. The Karnataka High Court, addressing a similar unfair eligibility rule, stated, “If a son’s marital status does not affect his right to seek a compassionate appointment, then a daughter’s marital status should not matter either, as a married daughter remains part of the family, and the law cannot assume that only married sons are part of the family.”
The Court decided to approve the current Writ Petition, stating that the refusal to appoint the petitioner-woman on compassionate grounds instead of her father was “illegal and arbitrary.” It ordered that she be given a position as a sweeper or another appropriate role starting from the date of her father’s death, along with all service benefits. However, the Court noted that she could not claim any monetary benefits since she was not appointed based on the “no work-no pay” principle.
Cause Title: Siripalli Ammulu v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others [Neutral Citation APHC:010122462021]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate D.V. Sasidhar
Respondents: Advocate K. Madhav Reddy, Assistant Government Pleader for Services and Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments
