JUDGMENT : Heard Sri K. Suri Sai Sanjay, learned counsel, representing Sri Nagendra Paragati, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order Rc.No.1581/2019-B5, dated 11-06-2021 passed by the 2nd respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner stating that “the applicant is not eligible one for compassionate appointment being a married daughter and her request cannot be considered as per Govt. Memo No.406/1/A1/ Admn/11/2004, dated 20-03-2004” which is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Government Memo 116417/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 08-10-2003, Memo No.55769/Ser.A/993, dated 27-01-2000, G.O.Ms.No.350, dated 30-07-1990 and Government Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004, dated 20-03- 2004 and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and also violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.10340 of 2014, dated 26-02-2021 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Government Employee in any suitable post under Compassionate appointment and pass such order or orders...” 3. Learned AGP for Services – I, representing respondent No.1, submits that respondent No.1 has no concern. 4. Learned GPs for Services – II and III, representing respondents No.2 to 4 are not present. 5. Respondents have not filed any counter affidavit in spite of order dated 10.08.2021 which provided that “since this is a case for compassionate appointment, they are directed to positively file their counter within three weeks.” 6. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, on the death of her father in harness on 24.04.2016 has been rejected on the only ground that the petitioner being his married daughter her request cannot be considered, in view of Government Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn/11/2004, dated 20.03.2004. 7. The petitioner’s late father Sri Gochipatha Ramesh was originally working as Welder Grade-III in the Office of the 4th respondent-the General Superintendent, P.W. Workshop Division, Seethanagaram, Guntur District, died on 24.04.2016 leaving behind his wife and two daughters, i.e., the petitioner and her sister. The petitioner submitted representation on 17.10.2016 before the 4th respondent requesting to provide employment on compassionate ground duly submitting all the requisite documents. The petitioner submitted representation on 17.10.2016 before the 4th respondent requesting to provide employment on compassionate ground duly submitting all the requisite documents. The affidavits of the family members, i.e., the mother and sister of the petitioner in petitioner’s favour, No Earning Member certificate, No Property Certificate, Caste certificate and the academic qualification certificates were duly annexed. The 4th respondent forwarded the petitioner’s representation to the 3rd respondent-the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Guntur, Guntur District, stating that in view of the Government Memo No.3476/Ser.III.1/2015-2, dated 27.11.2015, the petitioner’s request was to be considered in P.W. Workshop Division, Sithanagaram only, but as at that time there was no suitable post vacant with 10th Class as minimum qualification. As per G.O.Ms.No.427, G.A.(Ser.A) Department, dated 01.07.1991, the Collector of the concerned district was the Nodal authority for allotment of the eligible dependents of one department to any other department for appointment on compassionate grounds. Vide letter in Rc.No.2106/2017/B5, dated 07.08.2017, the 2nd respondent returned the proposal to the 3rd respondent to re-submit with detailed report, in terms of the Government Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn/11/2004, dated 20.03.2004, which was informed to the petitioner by the 4th respondent vide letter dated 16.10.2017 and pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted reply on 05.12.2017, reiterating that the petitioner was eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds, as married dependant daughter of the deceased. The matter remained pending with the respondents, and consequently, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 6672 of 2021, in which, notice was issued to the respondents and during the pendency of the said writ petition, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 11.06.2021, rejecting the petitioner’s prayer on the ground that she is not eligible for compassionate appointment being married daughter and her request cannot be considered, as per Government Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn/11/2004, dated 20.03.2004. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the married daughter is also eligible for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father under the policy of the Government. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the married daughter is also eligible for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father under the policy of the Government. He submits that, vide Government Memo No.116417/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 08.10.2003 it was clarified that the compassionate appointment was to be provided to the dependents of deceased Government employees to help the family in distress and accordingly if the deceased government employee was having more than one dependent married daughter and when the spouse of the deceased government employee was not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, one of the dependent married daughters be considered for compassionate appointment subject to eligibility as per the scheme of compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is fully eligible, as the petitioner’s mother and sister had already given their consent by way of their affidavits that they are not willing to claim in any manner in the future. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 10340 of 2014 in Ch. Damayanthi v APSRTC, 2021 SCC Online AP 382 as also in Smt. Peddisetti Anitha Sree Yenepalli Anitha Sree v. The State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.28931 of 2021, decided on 20.01.2022, in support of his contention. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The point is no longer res integra. 11. In Ch. Damayanthi v APSRTC (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration of various Govt. orders, memos on the point and the legal authorities on the subject, held that the married daughter is also entitled for grant of compassionate appointment on the death of her father. No discrimination can be made in such matters on the ground of sex and marriage. When married son is entitled for compassionate appointment, denial of the compassionate appointment to the married daughter is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. In that case, the “Bread Winner Scheme” prevalent, as applicable in APSRTC was in question, which did not include the married daughter in the list of eligibility criteria whereas son or unmarried daughter was included. In that case, the “Bread Winner Scheme” prevalent, as applicable in APSRTC was in question, which did not include the married daughter in the list of eligibility criteria whereas son or unmarried daughter was included. The coordinate Bench held that the word “unmarried” used in eligibility criteria of the “Bread Winner Scheme” was unconstitutional, discriminatory, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner therein for appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post. 12. In Smt. Peddisetti Anitha Sree Yenepalli Anitha Sree (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the Government Memo dated 20.03.2004, based upon which in the present case also the petitioner’s claim has been rejected, it was held that if the marital status of a son does not make any difference in law to his entitlement for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the marital status of a daughter should make no difference, as the married daughter does not cease to be a part of the family and law cannot make an assumption that married sons alone continue to be the part of the family. 13. The Allahabad High Court has also taken the view, in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2016 (1) ADJ 21 (DB) that the State Government should not discriminate in the matters 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. It was held that denial only on the ground of marriage to the daughter, by the action of the State was 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 woman on the ground of marriage, while the same is not a restriction in the case of a man. 14. The preamble of the Constitution ensures equality of status and opportunity to all its citizens. The Government should not discriminate or deprive woman on the ground of marriage, while the same is not a restriction in the case of a man. 14. In Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra), the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 was in question, in which expression “family” excluded the married daughters in Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules which was declared illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and the word “unmarried” in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1974 was struck down. It is relevant to reproduce paragraphs-13, 16, 17, 27 and 28 as under: “13. A variety of situations can be envisaged where the application of the rule would be invidious and discriminatory. The deceased government servant may have only surviving married daughters to look after the widowed parent-father or mother. The daughters may be the only persons to look after a family in distress after the death of the bread earner. Yet, under the rule, no daughter can seek compassionate appointment only because she is married. The family of the deceased employee will not be able to tide over the financial crisis from the untimely death of its wage earner who has died in harness. The purpose and spirit underlying the grant of compassionate appointment stands defeated. In a given situation, even though the deceased government employee leaves behind a surviving son, he may not in fact be looking after the welfare of the surviving parents. Only a daughter may be the source of solace-emotional and financial, in certain cases. These are not isolated situations but social realities in India. A surviving son may have left the village, town or state in search of employment in a metropolitan city. The daughter may be the one to care for a surviving parent. Yet the rule deprives the daughter of compassionate appointment only because she is married. Our law must evolve in a robust manner to accommodate social contexts. The grant of compassionate appointment is not just a social welfare benefit which is allowed to the person who is granted employment. The daughter may be the one to care for a surviving parent. Yet the rule deprives the daughter of compassionate appointment only because she is married. Our law must evolve in a robust manner to accommodate social contexts. The grant of compassionate appointment is not just a social welfare benefit which is allowed to the person who is granted employment. The purpose of the benefit is to enable the family of a deceased government servant, who dies in harness, to be supported by the grant of compassionate appointment to a member of the family. Excluding a married daughter from the ambit of the family may well defeat the object of the social welfare benefit. 16. Dealing with the aspect of marriage, the Division Bench held as follows: “Marriage does not have and should not have a proximate nexus with identity. The identity of a woman as a woman continues to subsist even after and notwithstanding her marital relationship. The time has, therefore, come for the Court to affirmatively emphasise that it is not open to the State, if it has to act in conformity with the fundamental principle of equality which is embodied in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, to discriminate against married daughters by depriving them of the benefit of a horizontal reservation, which is made available to a son irrespective of his marital status.” 17. The principles underlying Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution have an important bearing on gender identity. In C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India { AIR 1979 SC 1868 }, the Supreme Court considered the legality of a rule in the Indian Foreign Service (Conduct and Discipline) Rules under which a woman member of the service was required to obtain the permission of the Government before her marriage was solemnized and could be required to resign from service after her marriage, if the Government was satisfied that her family and domestic commitments are likely to come in the way of the due and efficient discharge of her duties as a member of the service. The Supreme Court held that “If a married man has a right, a married woman, other things being equal, stands on no worse footing”. In the meantime the Central Government had indicated that the rule was being reconsidered and its deletion was being gazetted. 27. The Supreme Court held that “If a married man has a right, a married woman, other things being equal, stands on no worse footing”. In the meantime the Central Government had indicated that the rule was being reconsidered and its deletion was being gazetted. 27. In conclusion, we hold that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression “family” in Rule 2(c) of the Dying-in- Harness Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. 28. We, accordingly, strike down the word ‘unmarried’ in Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules.” 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the married daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment. The impugned order, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground, only on the ground that the petitioner is married daughter of the deceased, cannot be sustained. The impugned order is therefore quashed. 16. The Writ Petition is allowed with direction to the 2nd respondent-the District Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur District at Guntur to consider and decide by a reasoned order the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment, on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before the said authority. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.