Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 226 (TS)

Shaheen Sultana v. State of Telangana

2025-04-03

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

body2025
ORDER : NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. The petitioners filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the 3 rd respondent on 17.04.2023, wherein the case of the 2 nd petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The 1 st petitioner’s husband Mohd.Younus was appointed as a Police Constable on 10.07.1989 and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanchan Bagh Police Station, Hyderabad. While in service, he expired on 24.10.2022. The 1st petitioner has two daughters by the name 1) Marium Fatima and 2) Samreen Fatima and one son by the name of Abrar Mohammed. The 1 st petitioner’s younger daughter Samreen Fatima resides with her husband and lives somewhere. The 2 nd petitioner is taking care of the 1 st petitioner in her old age. The 2nd petitioner is unemployed, and she cannot bear the medical expenses of the 1st petitioner. The 1 st petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased employee have decided to provide compassionate appointment to the 2 nd petitioner. Accordingly, the 1 st petitioner gave a detailed representation to respondent Nos.2 to 4, requesting to provide a compassionate appointment to the 2 nd petitioner in any suitable post. However, the 3 rd respondent, under the impugned order dated 17.04.2023, rejected the case of the 2 nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner’s son resides in Canada, and he is not taking care of his parents, and even he did not come to his father’s cremation. The 2nd petitioner is taking care of her mother in her old age. The 1 st petitioner’s younger daughter, Samreen Fatima, resides with her husband and lives somewhere. The 2 nd petitioner is unemployed, and she cannot bear the medical expenses of the 1 st petitioner. However, the 3 rd respondent, without considering the contentions of the 1st petitioner, erroneously rejected the case of the 2 nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. Since the 2 nd petitioner is unemployed and she is taking care of the 1 st petitioner, the 3rd respondent ought to have considered the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. 4. However, the 3 rd respondent, without considering the contentions of the 1st petitioner, erroneously rejected the case of the 2 nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. Since the 2 nd petitioner is unemployed and she is taking care of the 1 st petitioner, the 3rd respondent ought to have considered the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.21801 of 2023, dated 11.08.2023, W.P.No.19770 of 2023, dated 04.08.2023. He also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Jahar Khand at Ranchi in LPA Nos.617 of 2017 and 475 of 2017, dated 16.09.2019, wherein the claim of the applicant (married or unmarried sister) for being appointed on compassionate appointment was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide SLP (Civil) No.29678/2019, dated 12.11.2021. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ C.No.60881 of 2015 and batch, dated 04.12.2015, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.700 of 2018, dated 29.11.2018 and the judgment of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HYDERABAD CITY AND OTHERS Vs. K.PADMAJA , [ 2013 (4) ALT 501 (D.B.)] 6. Therefore, learned counsel submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the 2 nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. 7. (i) Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that while in service, the 1st petitioner’s husband died on 24.10.2022. The 1 st petitioner, the wife of the deceased, submitted an application on 01.04.2023 stating that she has two daughters and one son, and the 2 nd petitioner, who is the daughter of the 1st petitioner, is a qualified and unemployed person. The other daughter and son have less qualifications and are not interested in a government job. The 1 st petitioner requested the respondents to appoint the 2nd petitioner in any suitable post under compassionate grounds. (ii) On verification of the documents submitted by the 1 st petitioner, it is noticed that her son Sri Abrar Mohammed is NRI working in Canada and an earning family member. The 1 st petitioner requested the respondents to appoint the 2nd petitioner in any suitable post under compassionate grounds. (ii) On verification of the documents submitted by the 1 st petitioner, it is noticed that her son Sri Abrar Mohammed is NRI working in Canada and an earning family member. While working, the deceased submitted the HRMS Personal Registry Form and self declaration on 30.01.2021. In the said form, under the head of dependents details, the deceased only mentioned his spouse name Smt. Shaheen Sultana, i.e., the 1 st petitioner, he has not mentioned his children’s names as dependents. (iii) The 1st petitioner has not submitted the Financial Status Certificate of family members, and the 2 nd petitioner, who is a married daughter of a deceased employee, has also not submitted the Financial Status Certificate of her husband and the employment details of her husband. The married daughter is not eligible for compassionate appointment as per the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government. (iv) The Government of Telangana issued certain guidelines and instructions for appointment on compassionate grounds in Government Memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004, dated 20.03.2004, Memo No.11008/WNT/A1/2010, dated 21.05.2010, Memo No.L.Dis.No.191/ME-5/ME2/2017, dated 16.02.2018, Memo No.11008/WNT/A1/2010. G.O.Ms.No.350, dated 30.07.1999, G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 03.10.1977 and G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991. (v) Since the son of the deceased is an earning member of the family, no other member of the family is eligible for a compassionate appointment. Therefore, the case of the 2 nd petitioner was examined and rejected vide impugned order. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the 1 st petitioner has not submitted the Financial Status Certificate of family members and the 2 nd petitioner, who is a married daughter of the deceased employee, has also not submitted the Financial Status Certificate of her husband and also the details with regard to the employment of her husband. The married daughter is not eligible for compassionate appointment as per the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the case of the 2 nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the case of the 2 nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 10. In the instant case, the question is whether the married daughter is eligible for a compassionate appointment 11. As per the several memos issued by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh and the several judgments passed by the High Courts and Apex Court, a married daughter is also eligible for compassionate appointment, subject to the following conditions :- (i) The deceased employee should have only one married daughter, and there should be no other person in the family. Even that married daughter is dependent on the deceased employee’s family. (ii) 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. (iii) The married daughter and her husband are dependent on the deceased family and shall prove their financial status that they are not in a position to lead a normal life after the death of the deceased. 12. In the case on hand, the deceased employee has two daughters and one son. As per the record, the deceased’s son is an NRI working in Canada. The 2 nd petitioner did not state anything regarding her husband’s employment or financial status. In the HRMS Personal Registry form and in the self-declaration on 30.01.2021, the deceased mentioned only the name of the 1 st petitioner as his dependant, and he did not mention his children’s names. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the 2 nd petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment, since the 2nd petitioner is looking after the 1 st petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA Nos.617 of 2017 and 457 of 2017, dated 16.09.2019. 14. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA Nos.617 of 2017 and 457 of 2017, dated 16.09.2019. 14. In the above case, a common question of law is involved in both the Letter Patent Appeals as to whether the sister and the mother of the deceased workman of CCL, who were admittedly not included as dependants under Clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), could be appointed on compassionate ground, in absence of there being any other dependent under Clause 9.3.3. of the NCWA. The High Court of Jharkand allowed the said LPAs on 16.09.2019, by observing as follows :- “25. We are of the considered view that the case of the appellants is fully covered by the decisions relied upon by learned counsels for the appellants herein before. The non- inclusion of the parents and sister of the deceased workman dying in harness, in the list of dependants to be appointed on compassionate ground, cannot be said to be based on any rational basis, rather this is wholly unfair and absolutely unjust. It is also not based on any intelligible differentia, and frustrates the very object the scheme for compassionate appointment. These immediate blood relations cannot be denied the benefit of compassionate appointment, if they are otherwise entitled for the same, simply because of the fact that they may be entitled to the compensation under the workman compensation benefits admissible under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as they fall within the definition of 'dependent', given in Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act. 26. 26. Even otherwise, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court, in Purnima Das’s case (supra), while giving LPA No.617 of 2017 With LPA No.457 of 2017-16 - interpretation to the term dependent in terms of the NCWA itself, that for the purpose of a scheme for compassionate appointment every such member of the family of the employee who is dependent on the earnings of such employee for his / her survival must be considered to belong to 'a class', and their exclusion cannot be only on the ground of gender or marital status, we are of the considered view that this decision has a binding effect on the respondents, as this decision was rendered in case of compassionate appointment in coal company itself, which was again governed by the NCWA itself. This decision was again followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court also, in case of the present respondents themselves, i.e., Central Coalfields Ltd., in Hemanti Devi's case (supra). 27. For the forgoing reasons, the respondent Central Coal Fields Ltd., is directed not only to consider the claims of the appellants for being appointed on compassionate ground in accordance with law, but also to take steps for inclusion of the parents and sister of the workman dying in harness, in the definition of dependents under Clause 9.3.3 of the NCWA. We would like to make it clear that consideration of the appellants for appointment on the compassionate ground, shall be subject to fulfillment of the other conditions necessary for such appointment, by the appellants.” 15. As per the law laid down in the above case, though the deceased employee has not included the names of his other dependants in the service register, the petitioner’s case can be considered for compassionate appointment, provided the other conditions are fulfilled. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ C.No.60881 of 2015 and batch, dated 04.12.2015. 17. In the above case, the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and regulate the grant of compassionate appointment to the members of the family of a government servant who dies in harness. The Rules define the expression “family” to include, among others, “unmarried daughters and unmarried adopted daughters”. The Rules define the expression “family” to include, among others, “unmarried daughters and unmarried adopted daughters”. The Rules also bring sons and adopted sons within the ambit of a family. The eligibility of a son or adopted son is not conditioned by marital status. The challenge in these proceedings is to stipulate that only an unmarried daughter falls within the definition of the expression “family”. As a consequence of the condition, a married daughter ceases to fall within the family of a deceased government servant to seek compassionate appointment. 18. On the above said aspect, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petitions stating as follows :- “In conclusion, we hold that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression “family” in Rule 2 (c) of the Dyingin-Harness Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. We, accordingly, strike down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules. In consequence, we direct that the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment shall be reconsidered. We clarify that the competent authority would be at liberty to consider the claim for compassionate appointment on the basis of all the relevant facts and circumstances and the petitioners shall not be excluded from consideration only on the ground of their marital status. The writ petitions shall, accordingly, stand allowed.” 19. From the above judgment, it is clear that the married daughter cannot be excluded from the ambit of the expression “family”, and her case cannot be denied only on the grounds of her marital status. However, her claim for compassionate appointment can be considered, if she fulfils the relevant conditions issued by the Government from time to time. 20. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.700 of 2018, dated 29.11.2018, pertaining to the compassionate appointment. 21. In the above case, the District Collector, Karimnagar, vide letter dated 29.05.2017, returned the proposal of the District Collector, Adilabad, for compassionate appointment of the respondent on the ground that his father had retired from service as a Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector and was drawing service pension. 21. In the above case, the District Collector, Karimnagar, vide letter dated 29.05.2017, returned the proposal of the District Collector, Adilabad, for compassionate appointment of the respondent on the ground that his father had retired from service as a Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector and was drawing service pension. The District Collector, Karimnagar, concluded that in terms of the Circular Memo, dated 24.03.2012, a pension would have to be treated as an ‘earning’ and a pensioner had to be treated as an ‘earning member’ and therefore, the respondent could not avail the benefit of compassionate appointment as his other parent received service pension. 22. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeal by observing as follows :- “Be it noted that the delay in considering his case for compassionate appointment on merits is wholly attributable to the authorities themselves. However, as the mother of the respondent expired on 19.01.2016 and more than two and half years have elapsed, the financial condition of the respondent and his family would again have to be examined afresh. The respondent shall therefore file an affidavit detailing the financial condition of the family, whereby he can still assert a right to appointment on compassionate grounds owing to financial penury. The authorities shall verify such claim and if he is otherwise found to be eligible, they shall extend to him the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of the respondent’s affidavit.” 23. In the present case, the respondents did not reject the petitioners’ case on the ground of service pension, moreover, they denied the petitioners’ case on certain grounds, which are stated supra. Hence, the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 24. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of this Court in K.PADMAJA’s case (1 supra) stating that the married daughters are also entitled for compassionate appointment. 25. In the above case, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a compassionate appointment for a married daughter. The petitioners stated that unless the married daughter dependents on her mother/father, she is not entitled to an appointment on compassionate grounds. 25. In the above case, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a compassionate appointment for a married daughter. The petitioners stated that unless the married daughter dependents on her mother/father, she is not entitled to an appointment on compassionate grounds. As per the instructions of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, the applicant is residing with her husband in the house of her late father along with her mother and both the applicant and her husband are unemployed and financially weak; the Tribunal recording a finding that there is no reason to reject the claim of the applicant and allowed the O.A. while setting aside the impugned proceedings therein vide R.C.No.L&0/E3/649/2010, dated 25.11.2010. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition confirming the order of the Tribunal. 26. In the above case, the married daughter and her husband live with the deceased employee’s wife, and both are unemployees. But, in the present case, the petitioners have not disclosed the financial status of the 2nd petitioner’s husband, whether he is employed or not and whether they are living with the deceased employee’s wife or separately. Therefore, the above Division Bench judgment of this Court is not applicable to the case on hand. 27. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the 1 st petitioner has not submitted Financial Status Certificate of family members and the 2 nd petitioner, who is a married daughter of the deceased employee, has also not submitted the Financial Status Certificate of her husband and also the details with regard to the employment of her husband. The married daughter is not eligible for compassionate appointment as per the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment. 28. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court considers that it is just and proper to direct the 1 st petitioner to make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities seeking compensation appointment to the 2 nd petitioner. 29. 28. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court considers that it is just and proper to direct the 1 st petitioner to make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities seeking compensation appointment to the 2 nd petitioner. 29. Therefore, the 1 st petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities seeking compassionate appointment to the 2 nd petitioner by enclosing the relevant documents, including the financial status of the 2 nd petitioner’s husband, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon making such representation, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the 2 nd petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 30. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.