ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : “……. to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order in R O C No 314/2021/C1 dated 06-10-2021 issued by the respondent No 3 rejecting my request for appointment on compassionate grounds on the demise of my father Late R Yedukondalu stating that the application was submitted belatedly without considering the fact that O S No 276 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Gurazala was pending consideration due to which Family Member Certificate was not issued by Tahsildhar Piduguralla as illegal arbitrary colourable exercise of power contrary to the scheme envisaged under G O Ms No 687 General Administration Department dated 3 10 1977 apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No 3 to appoint me in any suitable post on compassionate grounds in the respondents Corporation by setting aside the proceedings in R O C No 314/2021/C1 dated 06 10 2021 issued by him and pass such other order or orders…” 2. The facts of the case are that initially the petitioner’s father Late R.Yedukondalu was appointed as a health worker in the respondent No.2 Corporation on NMR basis and subsequently his services were regularized by the respondent No.2. While so, the said Late R. Yedukondalu passed away on 03.12.2017, while he was in service of the respondent No.2. Thereafter, as the petitioner is eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds on sudden demise of his father Late R.Yedukondalu, as is provided under G.O.Ms No. 687, General Administration Department, dated 3.10.1977 requested the respondent No.3 for his appointment on compassionate grounds and the respondent No.3 in-turn directed the petitioner to produce Family Member Certificate of the petitioner’s father Late R. Yedukondalu for his appointment on compassionate grounds as is provided under G.O.Ms.No.145, Revenue (Ser.II) Department, dated 25.04.2015. While so, the petitioner’s brother Ragiri Venkateswarlu and two others have filed O.S.No.276 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala for partition of suit schedule properties into four (4) equal shares and allot one such share to each of the plaintiff and to the petitioner and the said suit was compromised through the Award, dated 12.03.2022 vide Lok Adalat Case No.10 of 2022 before the Lok Adalat Bench, Guzarala, wherein the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to his brother, sister and step mother out of the terminal benefits of his father. It is further stated that, after much persuasion the Tahsildhar, Piduguralla agreed to record the petitioner as the son of the second wife in the Family Member Certificate of the petitioner’s father Late R. Yedukondallu. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application, dated 30.09.2021 before the respondent No.3 bringing to his notice that finally the Family Member Certificate had been issued in favour of the petitioner and requested him to consider the petitioner candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds. Whereas, the respondent No.3 without considering the fact that due to the delay in issuing the family member certificate by the Tahsildhar, Piduguralla enabling the petitioner to make an application before him there was a delay in submitting the application for compassionate appointment, rejected the same stating that the application submitted by the petitioner is belated one. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 and denied all the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that one Smt. Ragiri Kumari made an application on 13.12.2017 seeking for payment for funeral expenses claiming that she is wife of deceased Ragiri Yedukondalu. Thereafter, Smt Ragiri Rosamma filed an application dated 29.01.2018 which is received by this office on 31.01.2018 seeking service benefits of deceased Ragiri Yedukondalu claiming that she is wife of deceased employee. While so, this office received an order passed by the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Court, Piduguralla in I.A.No. 208/2018 in OS No.99/2018, dated 31.08.2018 received on 28.09.2018 directing this office to with held an amount of Rs. 1,12,666/-. While so, this office received an order passed by the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Court, Piduguralla in I.A.No. 208/2018 in OS No.99/2018, dated 31.08.2018 received on 28.09.2018 directing this office to with held an amount of Rs. 1,12,666/-. In complying with the orders of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Court, Piduguralla the Commissioner has forwarded a letter dated 29.09.2018 to the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Court, Piduguralla stating that "This office has not made any payments due to not known of details of legal heirs as none of them have not produced Proper Person Certificate issued by Tahsildar. In future, the occasion to made payment due to death of Late Ragiri Yedukondalu, this office will withheld an amount of Rs.1,12,666/- as per your orders and same will be intimated". Thereafter this office issued orders dated 19.10.2018 calling both the parties to submit the relevant documents to take necessary action on releasing of all death benefits of deceased Ragiri Yedukondalu, who worked as Public Health Worker. It is also informed to produce "No Earning Member Certificate", "Education Qualification Certificates" and "No Objection Certificates from remaining family members on Rs.100/- stamp paper" to process the application for Compassionate Appointment. It is further contended that awards passed by The Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Court, Gurazala vide Lok Adalath Case No. 10/2022 in OS No. 276 of 2018, speak only about their properties and amount paid as per award is irrelevant to this case. Further, as stated by the petitioner that, he paid an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to his brother, sister and step mother. On perusal of the Family Members Certificate dated 30.08.2021 issued by the Tahsildar, Piduguralla Mandal shows that the petitioner is second wife's son of deceased employee, as per G.O MS No: 687, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 03.10.1977 and guidelines issued in Circular vide Memo No: 60681/Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration Department (Service-A) Dt. 12.08.2003 by the, Government of Andhra Pradesh the appointments to be made under compassionate grounds in favour of his Spouse, Son, Daughter and adopted son. But, no orders or memo or circulars are issued by the Government enabling to appoint second wife's son of the deceased employee on Compassionate ground. It is further stated that the petitioner admitting that he made an application on 30.09.2021 seeking compassionate appointment. But, no orders or memo or circulars are issued by the Government enabling to appoint second wife's son of the deceased employee on Compassionate ground. It is further stated that the petitioner admitting that he made an application on 30.09.2021 seeking compassionate appointment. As stated supra application for compassionate appointment to be made within one year from the date of death of deceased employee and hence endorsement vide Roc No: 314/2021/C1, dated. 06.10.2021 issued rejecting his claim is as per the rules in force. It is further stated that the petitioner made another application on 06/04/2022 to the Regional Director-Cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Guntur through proper channel, as such, the 3rd Respondent forwarded the same to the Regional Director-Cum- Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Guntur vide letter Roc No. 314/2021/C1 dated 27/04/2022 and same is not finalized. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner admitting that the issuance of Family Members Certificate delayed by the Tahsildar, Piduguralla Mandal due to reveal claim among them. It is further stated that the State Government is competent authority to take necessary decision to condone the delay by relaxing the rules in force. As such the petitioner cannot be seeking any direction against the 3rd respondent to consider his case for compassionate appointment. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Admn. Urban appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri K.Sreedhar Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for respondent No.3. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition contended that, the scheme of compassionate appointment being a welfare scheme, the respondent No.3 ought to have considered that the application was not made primarily because the certificate as per G.O.Ms.No.145 Revenue (Ser.II) Department, dated 25.4.2015 which is essential for claiming any Government benefit was not issued in favour of the petitioner, even though the Tahsildar, Piduguralla should have issued the Certificate as per the GO referred to above. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Mukesh Kumar & Another versus The Union of India and others, Civil Appeal No. /2022 arising out of SLP(c) No.18571/2018, wherein it was held that : While compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional guarantee under Article 16, a policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16. That is to say, a policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent. In this regard, ‘descent’ must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person. Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimant’s legitimacy as their child. The policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground appointment to members of the families of project-affected persons. We note with approval the decision of the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, to which one of us (Justice S. Ravindra Bhat) was a party, which held that descent cannot be a ground for denying employment under the scheme of compassionate appointments. Speaking through Sanghi J., the Court held: “22. The Court is of opinion that - apart from being textually sound - understanding 'descent' in terms of prohibiting discrimination against a person on the basis of legitimacy, or on the basis of his mother's status as a first or second wife, fits within the principles underlying Article 16(2). Not only is one's descent, in this sense, entirely beyond one's control (and therefore, ought not to become a ground of State-sanctioned disadvantage), but it is also an established fact that children of 'second' wives, whether counted as illegitimate or legitimate, have often suffered severe social disadvantage. Another significant observation here is that at the entry level - "legitimacy" is and cannot be a ground for denial of public employment. For these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner's regulation violates Article 16(2).” Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Sharma MANU/DE/3959/2014, WP(C) No.9008/2014 dt 19.04.2014 11. Given the above, we hold that the issue arising for consideration, in this case, is covered by the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Ors. For these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner's regulation violates Article 16(2).” Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Sharma MANU/DE/3959/2014, WP(C) No.9008/2014 dt 19.04.2014 11. Given the above, we hold that the issue arising for consideration, in this case, is covered by the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. V.K. Tripathi and consequently the judgment and order dated 18.01.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in CWJC No. 18153 of 2017 is set aside. As we have held that appellant No.1, Shri Manish Kumar, cannot be denied consideration under the scheme of compassionate appointments only because he is the son of the second wife, there shall be a direction to consider his case as per the extant policy. The Authorities shall be entitled to scrutinize whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfils all other requirements in accordance with the law. The process of consideration of the application shall be completed within a period of three months from today. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, submits that, unless this Court is pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss. Therefore, learned counsel request this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 also reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavit, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that, there is no dispute that the petitioner herein is the son of the deceased Government Employee. It is also observed that, the petitioner’s brother Ragiri Venkateswarlu and two others filed O.S No.276 of 2018 before the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala for partition of suit schedule properties into four equal shares and allot one such share to each of the plaintiff and to the petitioner and the said suit was compromised through Award, dated 12.03.2022 in L.A.Case No.10 of 2022. As seen from the Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Piduguralla, the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Sl.No.4. It clearly establishes that the petitioner is the one of family members/legal heir. 9. As seen from the Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Piduguralla, the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Sl.No.4. It clearly establishes that the petitioner is the one of family members/legal heir. 9. 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 is appears to be illegal and unjust. 10. On careful examination of the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment provided to the dependents of the Government employees, who die in harness, it has to be noted that with a noble object to help the families in distress of deceased employees, this scheme was introduced by the Government which is laudable. The respondents ought to have considered the situation of the family of the deceased employee in a sympathetic way and with human touch and not only being followed by the technicalities. 11. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya, (2007) 6 MLI 1011, wherein their Lordships comprising a Division Bench of Madras High Court have held at para No.7 as extracted hereunder: “7. 11. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya, (2007) 6 MLI 1011, wherein their Lordships comprising a Division Bench of Madras High Court have held at para No.7 as extracted hereunder: “7. However, in a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of an employee/government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else as it is done so in order to mitigate the hardship to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment; the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities.” 12. 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 order in Roc.No.314/2021/C1, dated 06.10.2021 issued by the respondent No.3 is hereby set aside. (ii) The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per 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. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.