The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter of a deceased Government employee cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment merely on the ground of her marital status.

In doing so, the Court noted that marriage does not sever her bond with or conclusively determine her dependency upon her parental family. It directed reconsideration of her claim for compassionate appointment without reference to her being a married daughter.

The issue arose in the context of G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (SER-A) Department, dated 30.07.1999 which permits consideration of a married daughter for compassionate appointment where she is the deceased employee's only child, has no older or younger siblings, the deceased's spouse is unwilling to avail the appointment, and she is dependent on the deceased, subject to the other conditions of the scheme.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the daughter's candidature.

Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Kulsum Nisha v. State of UP (2026), the Court observed:

"Marital status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations. The assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family is constitutionally impermissible. Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency. Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents...
In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment and having regard to the judgment of this Court relied upon by the petitioners that married daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment provided she is dependent on the deceased Government employee, this Court is of the considered opinion that 2nd petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, the impugned order of rejection dated 18.11.2023 is unsustainable."

The case concerned the family of an APSRTC driver who died in harness leaving behind his wife, a son and a married daughter.

The daughter was married to an unemployed man, and the petitioners claimed that both of them were wholly dependent upon the deceased. The deceased's son was stated to be living separately in Bangalore and not looking after the family of the deceased.

Following his death, the deceased's wife requested the authorities to consider her daughter's candidature for compassionate appointment. She submitted an Application, Family Member Certificate, No-Earning Member Certificate, No-Property Certificate and other relevant documents.

The authorities, however, rejected the claim on the ground that the daughter was married and was therefore ineligible for compassionate appointment under G.O.Ms.No.350.

Challenging the rejection before the High Court, the petitioners contended that a daughter does not cease to be a member of her parental family merely because she is married. They submitted that the daughter continued to be wholly dependent upon the deceased even after her marriage and that her marital status could not be a valid ground to reject her claim.

The APSRTC, on the other hand, contended that under G.O.Ms.No.350, a married daughter could be considered for compassionate appointment only where she had no brother or sister. Since the deceased had also left behind a son, it argued that the daughter was not eligible.

While considering these rival submissions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kulsum Nisha judgment wherein it was held that excluding a married daughter while treating a married son as part of the family rests on a gender-based stereotype and is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Applying these principles, the High Court held that the second petitioner was entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment, as she was dependent on the deceased Government employee. It consequently found the rejection order unsustainable. 

As APSRTC had since merged with the State Government, the District Collector was the competent authority to consider her claim. 

In view of the above, the Court set aside the rejection order and remitted the matter to the District Collector, directing consideration of the daughter's case for compassionate appointment without reference to the objection that she was a married daughter.

The exercise was directed to be completed within four months from the date of receipt of the Court's order.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

Counsel for the Petitioners: G. Jagadeeswar

Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Services-II, K. Viswanatham, Standing Counsel for APSRTC.