ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo in Rc.No.2336/2021/A3, dated .09.2021 as unconstitutional and against the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently directing the respondents No.3 to 5 to consider the petitioner’s daughter for compassionate appointment and pass such other order or orders……” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband Sri Bhagavathula Ramalinga Sastry died on 30-04-2021 while working as School Assistant (Telugu) in Zilla Parishad High School, Vanapamula village, Pedaparapudi Mandal. They blessed with only one daughter by name Ms. Indira, she completed her B.Sc degree in the year 2015 from Krishna University, and during the life time of petitioner’s husband Sri. Bhagavathula Ramalinga Sastry, they performed their daughter's marriage on 10-12-2018. After demise of petitioner’s husband, she made an application to the respondents requesting to provide compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter on the basis of her qualification to the respondent No.3, who in turn, forwarded the application to the 4th respondent for taking necessary action in view of a Government circular in memo No. 35252/Ser.G/A1/2011-1. But no action has been taken. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation to the 4th and 5th respondents on 29-07-2021 for the same relief, but the same was also rejected by the 5th respondent vide R.c.No.2236/2021/A3, dated 14-08-2021. Again the petitioner made another application, dated 20-09-2021 clarifying the confusion of the 5th respondent stating that the petitioner is seeking only for her daughter's compassionate appointment as she is the only one child to them and that they have no other children. The 5th respondent again refused her request vide Rc.No. 2236/2021/A3, dt: -09-2021. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the petitioner’s husband was worked as School Assistant in Zilla Praja Parishad High School, Vanapamula, while he was working in Z.P.H. School Vanapamula died on 30.04.2021. After demise of her husband the petitioner made a representation on 29.07.2021 seeking compassionate appointment to her married daughter. It is submitted that the petitioner daughter was married and living away from the family of deceased employee. After demise of her husband the petitioner made a representation on 29.07.2021 seeking compassionate appointment to her married daughter. It is submitted that the petitioner daughter was married and living away from the family of deceased employee. In view of fact that the petitioner daughter was married and not dependent upon the deceased family, and in this connection, the petitioner’s request has been rejected vide proceedings in R.C.No.2236/2021/A3, dt. 14.08.2021 by following the instructions issued by the Government vide 406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004, Fin (Admn.II) Dated: 20.03.2004. Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004, dated 26.03.2004. It is further stated that the petitioner made another representation dated 20.08.2021 to the 4th respondent requested to consider her daughter case for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the Government had issued following instructions vide Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004, Fin (Admn.II) Dated: 20.03.2004 considering married daughter for compassionate appointment. In the present case, the petitioner daughter was married to one Sri Kota Phani Raj Raghavendra and living with him and not dependent upon the deceased family. Hence she is not eligible for compassionate appointment as the Memo dated 20.03.2004. Therefore, the action of this respondent is quite legal and valid. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri P.V.S. K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III and Sri G.Srinivasula Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP, MPP appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999, the married daughters also entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds. This Court also held that married daughter is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Under these circumstances, rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that her daughter is married daughter is illegal, unjust and contrary to the object of scheme of compassionate appointment and hence learned counsel requests this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment of her daughter on compassionate appointment. 6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Ch. Damayanthi vs. APSRTC, Indiankanoon.org/doc/185387917 and requests this Court to pass similar order in the present writ petition also. 7. 6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Ch. Damayanthi vs. APSRTC, Indiankanoon.org/doc/185387917 and requests this Court to pass similar order in the present writ petition also. 7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that consequent to the death of husband of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment of her daughter under compassionate grounds. He mainly submits that the married daughters are not entitled for employment under the scheme and the G.O.Ms.No.350, dated 30.07.1999 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as it was not opted by the respondents and it is not in purview of G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2013. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1999 in which it was clarified 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 for compassionate appointment, provided she is depending on the deceased government employee and subject to satisfying the other conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time. 9. The relevant clauses of the scheme of compassionate appointment in the consolidated instructions issued by the State Government in Circular Memo No.60681/ Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003 are extracted as hereunder: II. Depending family members means; (a) Spouse. (b) Son/daughter of regular Government employees. (i) x x x x (ii) x x x x (iii) When there is only a married daughter to the deceased government employee without older or the 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 for compassionate appointment, provided she is dependent on the deceased government employee. 10. On careful examination of G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1999 and Circular Memo No.60681/ Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003, it was mentioned therein that the married daughters also entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds subject to certain conditions. 11. 10. On careful examination of G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1999 and Circular Memo No.60681/ Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003, it was mentioned therein that the married daughters also entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds subject to certain conditions. 11. 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 relief 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 the one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. While the State Government and its instrumentalities implementing the scheme of compassionate appointments to help the destitute families of the deceased employees, but incorporating such clause in eligibility criteria discriminating the daughters, who are being married is appears to be illegal and unjust. 12. It appears from the above condition of eligibility criteria that there is no such condition for ‘son’ whether he is married or unmarried. But with respect to the daughter, it was mentioned that ‘unmarried daughter’ is only eligible. The married daughters are declared as ineligible on the ground that she is married. Showing discrimination towards ‘married daughter’ because she is being married as and when there is no such ineligibility applicable to a ‘married son’ appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory. 13. This Court is of the considered opinion that the sons and daughters whether they are unmarried or married, they are part of the family of their parents for the entire life. Just because of the daughter is got married, saying that she is not the member of her parents family is nothing but atrocities. Because of her marriage the daughter would not cease her status as member of the family of her parents. 14. “A child remains a child to parent, whatever be their gender”. A son or a daughter does not cease their relationship with their parents as children upon being married. Because of her marriage the daughter would not cease her status as member of the family of her parents. 14. “A child remains a child to parent, whatever be their gender”. A son or a daughter does not cease their relationship with their parents as children upon being married. The relationship of children with their parents cannot be governed by their martial status. The daughters and sons have equivalent rights and duties with respect to their parents. This court has witnessed several instances where the daughters, married or unmarried, have been performing customary rites on the occasion of demise of their parents and carrying the whole burden of the family upon their shoulders. 15. This Court can visualize this aspect in a different perceptive. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act No.56 of 2007) is enacted by Parliament to provide for more effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and Senior Citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution. The relevant provisions of the said Act are as extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the present case: 2. Definitions: (a) “Children” includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter but does not include a minor; (d) “Parent” means father or mother whether biological, adoptive or step father or step mother, as the case may be, whether or not the father or the mother is a senior citizen; 4. Maintenance of parents and senior citizens.- (1) A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under Section 5 in case of – (3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life. 16. The Parliament while enacting the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, defined the “children” as son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter. The Parliament never intended to interpret or differentiate the daughter as married daughter or unmarried daughter. The obligation was cast upon the children to maintain their parents to cater the needs of such parent either father or mother or both to lead a normal life. 17. The Parliament never intended to interpret or differentiate the daughter as married daughter or unmarried daughter. The obligation was cast upon the children to maintain their parents to cater the needs of such parent either father or mother or both to lead a normal life. 17. On careful consideration of the provisions of this Act, the obligation to look after or take care of their parents by the daughters after their marriage has not taken away. The married daughter also has the obligation and responsibility to attend the needs of her parents to lead normal life. As such, it is clear from the provisions of the Act No.56/2007 also there is no difference between the sons and daughters whether they are married or unmarried in discharging their responsibilities and obligations towards their parents. 18. This Court has fortified the judgments rendered by various High Courts, which are extracted as hereunder: 19. In Smt.Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik vs The State of Karnataka and others Definitions: 2021 (1) AKR 444, the High Court of Karnataka while holding the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of expression ‘family’ in Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 is illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution observed as extracted hereunder: 14.4. In all the illustrations the offer of appointment or its denial is on the basis of gender as the sons of a deceased Government servant may well be married but are not denied appointment on the ground of marriage. If the daughters of a Government servant are married as marriage is a social commitment of a parent and in furtherance of such social commitment the daughter is given in marriage becomes ineligible to seek appointment in terms of the Rules. Therefore, the Rules insofar as it creates division of the same object of appointment on the basis of gender by granting appointment to a son without any qualification and denying the same to a daughter with the qualification of “marriage” cannot but be held to be discriminatory. Marriage does not determine the continuance of the relationship of a child with the parent, whether son or a daughter. Son continues to be a son both before and after marriage and a daughter also should continue to be a daughter both before and after marriage. Marriage does not determine the continuance of the relationship of a child with the parent, whether son or a daughter. Son continues to be a son both before and after marriage and a daughter also should continue to be a daughter both before and after marriage. This relationship does not get effaced by the fact of marriage, as marriage does not severe the relationship of the daughter with the parent. These relationships are neither governed nor defined by marital status. This notion on which the Rule is framed cannot answer the tests of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 15.5. The Rule that is called in question and has fallen for interpretation, without a shadow of a doubt is discriminatory as the words “unmarried” permeates through the entire fabric of Rule 2 and 3 as extracted hereinabove to deny appointment to a married daughter. If the Rule is left as it is, in view of my preceding analysis, would create a discrimination on the basis of gender. 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. Therefore, the Rule which becomes violative of Articles 14, 15 on its interpretation will have to be struck down as unconstitutional as excluding the daughters purely on the basis of marriage will constitute an impermissible discrimination which is invidious and be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 20. In Mamata Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, 2020 SCC OnLine HP 2125, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, in a similar issue arose with regard to non consideration of married daughter for compassionate appointment, it is observed as extracted hereunder: 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 is, could not withstand the test of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 12. Another point, which we need to delve on, is whether with the marriage of a daughter, her dependency on her parents ceases or it remains unaffected? The daughters have all the rights, which are available to sons, be it succession, right(s) in property etc. and these rights don't cease with marriage of a daughter and remain alive even after marriage. In fact, marriage is a social circumstance and it does not affect the dependency, thus marriage cannot be regarded as a reasonable and acceptable ground to determine dependency. For dependency (herein financial dependency), many facets have to be looked into, one of them is a situation where a son is not in need of compassionate appointment, but a married daughter is in need of the same, then the State cannot shrug off from its responsibility, rather duty, to provide compassionate appointment to her and the State cannot turn its back to a daughter, on unacceptable ground that she is married, who looks towards the State with the eyes of hope. 21. In Smt. Vimla Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2016(1) ADJ 21 (DB) , the High Court of Allahabad observed as hereunder: "The issue before the Court is whether marriage is a social circumstance which is relevant in defining the ambit of the expression "family" and whether the fact that a daughter is married can constitutionally be a permissible ground to deny her the benefit of compassionate appointment. The matter can be looked at from a variety of perspectives. The matter can be looked at from a variety of perspectives. Implicit in the definition which has been adopted by the state in Rule 2 (c) is an assumption that while a son continues to be a member of the family and that upon marriage, he does not cease to be a part of the family of his father, a daughter upon marriage ceases to be a part of the family of her father. It is discriminatory and constitutionally impermissible for the State to make that assumption and to use marriage as a rationale for practicing an act of hostile discrimination by denying benefits to a daughter when equivalent benefits are granted to a son in terms of the compassionate appointment. Marriage does not determine the continuance of the relationship of a child, whether a son or a daughter, with the parents. A son continues to be a son both before and after marriage. A daughter continues to a daughter. This relationship is not effaced either in fact or in law upon marriage. Marriage does not bring about a severance of the relationship between, a father and mother and their son or between parents and their daughter. These relationship are not governed or defined by marital status. The state has based its defence in its reply and the foundation of the exclusion on a paternalistic notion of the role and status of a woman. These patriarchal notions must answer the test of the guarantee of equality under Article 14 and must be held answerable to the recognition of gender identity under Article 15. The stand which has been taken by the state in the counter affidavit proceeds on a paternalistic notion of the position of a woman in our society and particularly of the position of a daughter after marriage. The affidavit postulates that after marriage, a daughter becomes a member of the family of her husband and the responsibility of her maintenance solely lies upon her husband. The second basis which has been indicated in the affidavit is that in Hindu Law, a married daughter cannot be considered as dependent of her father or a dependent of a joint Hindu Family. The assumption that after marriage, a daughter cannot be said to be a member of the family of her father or that she ceases to be dependent on her father irrespective of social circumstances cannot be countenanced. The assumption that after marriage, a daughter cannot be said to be a member of the family of her father or that she ceases to be dependent on her father irrespective of social circumstances cannot be countenanced. Our society is governed by constitutional principles. Marriage cannot be regarded as a justifiable ground to define and exclude from who constitutes a member of the family when the state has adopted a social welfare policy which is grounded on dependency. The test in matter of compassionate appointment is a test of dependency with defined relationships. There are situations where a son of the deceased government servant may not be in need of compassionate appointment because the economic and financial position of the family of the deceased are not such as to require the grant of compassionate appointment on a preferential basis. But the dependency or a lack of dependency is a matter which is not determined a priori on the basis of whether or not the son is married. Similarly, whether or not a daughter of a deceased should be granted compassionate appointment has to be defined with reference to whether, on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, she was dependent on the deceased government servant. Excluding daughters purely on the ground of marriage would constitute and impermissible discrimination and be violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. 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. 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 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 the 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. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 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 emphasis 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."" 22. 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. 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 r not a restriction in the case of a man. 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. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 15. In fact, this Court in the case of R.Govindammal Vs. Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, Chennai in 2015 (5) CTC 344 has directed the first respondent to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, is she is otherwise eligible, without reference to marriage. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 15. In fact, this Court in the case of R.Govindammal Vs. Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, Chennai in 2015 (5) CTC 344 has directed the first respondent to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner, is she is otherwise eligible, without reference to marriage. In the said order, the learned Judge of this Court 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. The learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondent Mr.R.Vijayakumar, argued that the impugned order dated NIL was passed in accordance with the above Government Orders. Since, the Government Order is restricted to give employment to the married daughters and hence, he sustained the impugned order. 17. In my considered opinion and by going through the above judgments and on perusing the impugned order passed by the respondent it is unfortunate to note here that the respondent without considering the pathetic situation of the petitioner's case that the elder sister viz., M.Manjula, is a mentally retarded person and she ought to have been taken care of by her family members, the respondent has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without mentioning any other ground except the ground of married daughter. All the above cases cited supra has rightly directed the respondent authorities to provide compassionate appointment without reference to the marriage of the petitioner. In the present case also, the above judgment is squarely applicable." (emphasis supplied) 18. The above said decisions apply on all fours to the case on hand. In the instant case, the deceased Government servant has no male issue. If the other legal heirs have given no objection to the petitioner being granted appointment on compassionate grounds, it cannot be stated that the petitioner is not entitled to appointment merely because she is r married. That apart, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act places equal responsibility on both the son and daughter to take care of their parents. 19. There can be no artificial classification between married son and married daughter only on the basis of sex, as the same would tantamount to gender discrimination. That apart, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act places equal responsibility on both the son and daughter to take care of their parents. 19. There can be no artificial classification between married son and married daughter only on the basis of sex, as the same would tantamount to gender discrimination. If married son is considered to be a part of the family, this Court is at a loss to understand as to why a married daughter should not be included in the definition of family. 20. Son and daughter are supposed to take care of the parents at the old age. The married son is to be treated at part with the unmarried daughter. No considering the married daughter for compassionate appointment merely on the basis of marriage is patently arbitrary and unreasonable. 23. In Udham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. & another vs. Anjula Singh and others, 2019(3) STC 570 (Uttarakhand) = (2019) 2 UPLB EC1, the High Court of Uttarkhand (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.” 24. In C.B. Muthamma vs. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC 260 , the Hon'ble Apex Court at para Nos.6 and 7 observed as extracted 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. 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 2019(3) STC 570 (Uttarakhand) = (2019) 2 UPLB EC1 (1979) 4 SCC 260 diplomatic assignment has been filled by women, the inference of diehard allergy to gender parity is inevitable. 7. We do not mean to universalise or dogmatise that men and women are equal in all occupations and all situations and do not exclude the need to pragmatise where the requirements of particular employment, the sensitivities of sex or the peculiarities of societal sectors or the handicaps of either sex may compel selectivity. But save where the differentiation is demonstrable, the rule of equality must govern. This creed of our Constitution has at last told on our governmental mentation, perhaps partly pressured by the pendency of this very writ petition. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that Rule 18(4) (referred to earlier) has been deleted on November 12, 1973. And, likewise, the Central Government's affidavit avers that Rule 8(2) is on its way to oblivion since its deletion is being gazetted. Better late than never. At any rate, we are relieved of the need to scrutinise or strike down these rules. 25. In Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 5 Mah LJ 543, the High Court of Bombay (DB) held at para No.13 as extracted hereunder: 13. From the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Government Resolution dated 20-2-2004 to the extent it excludes a married daughter from being considered as a member of the "family" a deceased retail license holder is violative of the provisions of the Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. From the aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Government Resolution dated 20-2-2004 to the extent it excludes a married daughter from being considered as a member of the "family" a deceased retail license holder is violative of the provisions of the Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Minister, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection while passing the impugned order dated 17-6-2009 has taken into consideration the position as obtained from Government Resolution dated 20-2-2004. Hence the claim of the petitioner for being treated as a legal representative of deceased Godavaribai J. Jadhav has not been considered as the petitioner was considered to be a married daughter. In view of our aforesaid findings, the revision application under clause- 16 of the Licensing Order, 1979 will have to be remitted back for fresh decision in the light of our aforesaid findings. Hence, we pass the following order: (a) The Government Resolutions/Circulars dated 22-12-1997, 16-8-2001, 10-12-2003 and 20-2-2004 to the extent they exclude a married daughter from being considered as a member of the "family" of a deceased retail license holder (2014) 5 Mah LJ 543 are held to be violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; 26. In Sou.Swara Sachin Kulkarni (Kumari Deepa Ashok Kulkarni) vs. The Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle and another, 2013 SCC OnLine BOM 1549 (DB), the Bombay High Court held at para No.2 as extracted hereunder: 2. The petitioner claims that her name has been deleted only because she is married. A married daughter could not have laid a claim for compassionate employment, because in the perception of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, she is no longer a part of the family of the deceased. It is this stand, which is questioned before us, in this writ petition. Mr. Kulkarni, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the facts in this case are peculiar. The deceased only had daughters. Both daughters are married. The second daughter is not interested in the job. The petitioner is interested in the job because she is supporting her widowed mother. The mother has nobody to look forward to except the petitioner - daughter. The petitioner has asserted that even after her marriage she is looking after her mother in her old age. Both daughters are married. The second daughter is not interested in the job. The petitioner is interested in the job because she is supporting her widowed mother. The mother has nobody to look forward to except the petitioner - daughter. The petitioner has asserted that even after her marriage she is looking after her mother in her old age. In such circumstances, the deletion of her name from the list is violative of the constitutional mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 27. In Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City and others vs. K. Padmaja 2013(4) ALT 501 (D.B), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh while considering an identical issue that respondent- applicant in the said case was married daughter and she failed to produce any proof to show that she was staying with the deceased father at the time of his death and she was residing in a separate house along with her husband and was eking her livelihood by sewing the garments, and despite that, this Court held as under: "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 the mother (widow of the deceased employee). No valid reasons are recorded by the authorities to reject the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment." 28. In V. Shashi Kala vs. District Collector, Anantapuramu and others, 2019(3)ALD 338 (DB), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as extracted hereunder: "In the present case, undisputedly the petitioner is the elder daughter of the deceased and she along with her husband is staying at the place of the deceased even after her marriage. In the society, there are two types of families - one is wealthy and the other is poor. The wealthy people ask their daughters after marriage either to stay with them or to stay separately by making necessary arrangements. In the second category, the daughters continue to stay with their parents depending upon their income even after their marriage when they do not have source of income. The present case is of the second category." 29. The wealthy people ask their daughters after marriage either to stay with them or to stay separately by making necessary arrangements. In the second category, the daughters continue to stay with their parents depending upon their income even after their marriage when they do not have source of income. The present case is of the second category." 29. This Court gone through the decisions relied by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. This Court, with great respect, express its acceptance towards the proposition of law laid down in those judgments. But, those judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. 30. In the present case the deceased employee left behind his wife, who is the petitioner herein. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of her daughter was rejected. Now after demise of her husband, it is the responsibility cast upon the petitioner to take care of her children. Due to this reason also, the case of the petitioner has to be considered. If the compassionate appointment is not given to her daughter, the core aim and object of the compassionate appointment scheme will be defeated. As such, this court holds that the claim of the petitioner for appointment of her daughter on compassionate appointment is justified. 31. In view of the foregoing reasons and in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition with the following directions; (i) The impugned Memo in Rc.No.2236/2021/A3, dated .09.2021 issued by the respondent No.5 is hereby set aside. (ii) The respondents No.3 to 5 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner’s daughter for compassionate appointment as per the then extant policy. The authorities shall be entitled to scrutinize whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfils all other requirements in accordance with law. The process of consideration of the application shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 32. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.