Telangana High Court
Msmt. Maginamnagamalleshwari @ … vs The State Of Telangana on 16 June, 2026
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.16315 OF 2026
Between:
Smt. Maginam Nagamalleshwari @ Aavuladoddi Malleshwari
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana, & 2 others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 16.06.2026
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.16315 OF 2026
% 16.06.2026
Between:
# Smt. Maginam Nagamalleshwari @ Aavuladoddi Malleshwari
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana, & 2 others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.R.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri G.Nagaraju, AGP for Civil
Supplies for R1
AGP for Revenue for R2 and R3
? Cases Referred:
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.16315 OF 2026
DATED: 16.06.2026
Between:
Smt. Maginam Nagamalleshwari ... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana and two others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Sri P.R.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri G. Nagaraju,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies,
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned
Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer
as under:
“…to issue a Writ/s, order/s or Direction/s more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus,
declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing a
memo vide Rc.No.A1/1033/2024 dated 11.03.2026 by
4rejecting the request of the petitioner to appoint her as a
dealer for Fair Price shop No.2246023, situated at
Rajuladevarapadu Village, Yerrupalem Mandal, Khammam
District as being illegal, and arbitrary and unconstitutional
and consequently to set-aside memo vide Rc.No.
A1/1033/2024 dated 11.03.2026 and direct the
respondents to appoint the petitioner as Fair Price shop
dealer in respect of shop No.2246023, situated at
Rajuladevarapadu Village, Yerrupalem Mandal, Khammam
District, on compassionate grounds and be pleased to pass
such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case……”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the
averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in
support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-
The petitioner’s father, late Sri Maginam Valaraju, was the
authorized dealer of Fair Price Shop No.2246023, located at
Rajuladevarapadu Village, Yerrupalem Mandal, until his death on
16.11.2020. The petitioner, a widowed daughter who was
dependent on her father and assisted him in the functioning of
the Fair Price Shop, applied for compassionate appointment as
dealer. Pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P. No. 32726 of
2025 directing consideration of her claim, the 3rd respondent
rejected the same vide Memo Rc.No.A1/1033/2024
dated 11.03.2026 solely on the ground that she is a
widowed/married daughter. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
has filed the present writ petition.
5
PERUSED THE RECORD:
4. a). The impugned proceedings No.A1/1033/2024
dated 11.03.2026 issued by the Office of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Khammam is extracted hereunder:-
It is to inform you that, as per the report furnished
by the Tahsildar, it is revealed that the applicant is
daughter of the deceased dealer. She is widowed daughter.
As per the G.O.Ms.No.20 Consumer Affairs, Food &
Civil Supplies (C.S.I-CCS) Department Dt.06.09.2018,
appointment of dealer as compassionate shall be done ” In
the cases where the family may be having an unmarried
dependent daughter of the deceased without any living son
or wife, the unmarried daughter shall be considered”.
Hence the request of the petitioner cannot be
considered.
b). The findings of the enquiry conducted by the
Office of the Tahsildar, Yerrupalem as per the enquiry
report forwarded by the Tahsildar, Yeerupalem
dated 28.01.2026 in R.C.No.B/68/2026 addressed to the
Revenue Divisional Office, Khammam is extracted
hereunder:-
Invite kind attention to the references cited and
submit that Smt. Avuladoddu Nagamalleswart Maginam
Nagamalleswari widowed daughter of late Sri. Maginarn
Valaraju S/o Venkaiah, has submitted an application
requesting grant of Fair Price Shop dealership of FPS
6No.2246023 of Rajuladevarapadu Village, Yerrupalem
Mandal, on compassionate grounds, due to the death of
her father on 16.11.2020 while holding valid authorization.
In this regard, the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, In
W.P. No.32726 of 2025 dated 27.11.2025, has directed the
competent authority to consider her application in
accordance with the rules.
In compliance with the above references and on the
instructions of this office, a detalled enquiry was submitted
by the Revenue Inspector, Yerrupalem, which Included
local enquiry, verification of family dependency,
examination of relevant records and physical inspection of
the proposed shop premises. The findings of the enquiry
are submitted below.
Sl. Name Relationship Remarks
No.
1. Smt. Maginam Achamma Wife 61 years
2. Smt. Batta Married daughter Expired
Tirupatamma earlier
3. Smt.Kommanaboina Married daughter Living
Laxmi separately
4. Smt. Avuladoddu Widowed daughter 40
Nagamalleswari (Applicant)
5. Sri Maginam Adopted son 27
Venkata Krishna
Children of Late Smt.Batta Tirupatamma (Expired
Daughter):
1. Sri Maginam Venkata Krishna – Adopted by the
deceased dealer and treated as family member.
2. Sri Batta Durgarao- Living separately and not
dependent.
II. FINDINGS OF THE ENQUIRY:
1. The deceased dealer had three daughters, out of
whom one daughter Smt.Batta Tirupatamma expired
earlier.
2. Out of the children of the deceased daughter’s Son
Sri. Maginam Venkata Krishna was taken in adoption
by the deceased dealer vide Sada Stamp Paper, while
7the other son Sri Batta Durgarao is living separately
and is not dependent on the deceased dealer’s family.
3. The second daughter Smt. Kommanaboina Laxmi is
married and living separately with her family, and is
not dependent on the deceased dealer.
4. The third daughter, Smt.Avuludoddu
Nagamalleswari (Applicant), became a widow
due to the death of her husband on 10.11.2018
and since then she has been residing on
dependent upon her father Sri Maginam Valaraju
S/o Venkaiah the deceased the deceased of FPS
No.2246023 of Rajuladevarapadu Village,
Yerrupalem Mandal.
5. On the date of death of the dealer i.e.,
16.11.2020, the applicant was 40 years of age,
which is within the prescribed age limit.
6. The applicant is financially dependent on the
deceased dealer.
7. The wife of the deceased dealer Smt. Maginam
Achamma, aged 61 years, she is age-barred and
not eligible for appointment.
8. Subsequently to the publication of the public
notice by this office for calling objection, vide
reference 4th cited, all other family members
have submitted their No Objection statements,
which were legally recorded by the Girdavar-I,
Yerrupalem. In the said statement they have
categorically expressed that they have no
objection to the grant of the Fair Price Shop
dealership to Smt.Avuladoddu Nagamalleswari @
Maginam Nagamalleswari on compassionate
grounds.
9. The applicant has passed SSC (10th Class),
which is the minimum educational qualification
required for maintenance of FPS records and
transactions.
10. The Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in W.P.
No.32726 of 2025, dated 27.11.2025, has directed the
competent authority to consider the application of the
petitioner and pass appropriate orders.
The proposed Fair Price Shop premises bearing
H.No.3-39, situated at Rajuladevarapadu Village,
Yerrupalem Mandal was physically inspected and found to
8
have adequate space for the storage and distribution of
essential commodities. The building is in the main village
road. The premises is found suitable for running the Fair
Price Shop in accordance with Civil Supplies norms.
In view of the above facts, findings of local
enquiry, verification of dependency, Inspection of
the shop premises, and the directions of the Hon’ble
High Court, it is submitted that Smt.Avuladoddu
Nagamalleswari @ Maginam Nagamalleswari,
Widowed Daughter of late Sri Maginam Valaraju is an
eligible for consideration of Fair Price Shop
Dealership of FPS No.2246023 of Rajuladevarapadu
Village, on compassionate grounds.
The report is submitted for favour of kind
consideration and further necessary action.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner mainly put-forth the following submissions:-
The order impugned dated 11.03.2026 in
Rc.No.A1/1033/2024, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Khammam, rejecting the petitioner’s application for allotment of a
Fair Price Shop dealership on compassionate grounds, is bereft of
reasons.
b). Only on the ground that the petitioner is widowed
daughter of the deceased dealer vide impugned order
dated 11.03.2026 vide Rc.No.A1/1033/2024 of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Khammam, the application of the petitioner
seeking appointment of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer
9
on compassionate grounds in respect of Fair Price Shop bearing
No.2246023 situated at Rajuladevarapadu Village, Yerrupalem
Mandal, Khammam District had been rejected illegally, arbitrarily,
contrary to the clear recommendation in favour of the petitioner
herein in the enquiry report dated 28.01.2026 in
R.C.No.B/68/2026 issued by the Office of the Tahsildar,
Yerrupalem, and addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Khammam.
c). The order impugned dated 11.03.2026 issued by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, is contrary to the view
taken by this Court in its judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed in
W.P.No.14080 of 2023.
d). The order impugned is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.350
dated 30.07.1999 and also the Government Memo dated
08.10.2003 issued in Memo No.116417/Ser.A/ 2003-1, wherein it
is clearly observed that married daughters are entitled to be
considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, subject to
their eligibility as per the scheme notified in this regard.
e). The respondents cannot deny the petitioner equality
before the law, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under
the Constitution and which ensures equal treatment to all
individuals.
10
f). The impugned order passed by the respondent No.3,
rejecting the petitioner’s request solely on the ground that she is
a married daughter, is erroneous and without application of mind.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that
the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for in the
present writ petition.
6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.1 mainly put-forth the
following submissions:
i). The deceased dealer died on 16.11.2020. The
petitioner submitted an application only in the year 2024-2025.
The petitioner did not make an application within one year from
the date of death of the deceased dealer and approached the
concerned authorities seeking compassionate appointment only
during the year 2024-25.
ii). The order impugned has been passed by the
respondent No.3 as per the report dated 28.01.2026 issued by
the Office of the Tahsildar, Yerrupalem wherein it was revealed
that the petitioner is the third daughter of the deceased dealer
11
and is a widowed daughter, hence as per G.O.Ms.No.20 dated
06.09.2018, petitioner is ineligible.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents contends that the petitioner is not entitled for
the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION :-
A bare perusal of the record indicates that clear findings
were recorded in favour of the petitioner in the enquiry report
submitted by the Office of the Tahsildar, Yerrupalem, addressed
to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, dated 28.01.2026
in Rc.No.B/68/2026 (referred to and extracted above).
8. The conclusion of the Tahsildar concerned in the said report
dated 28.01.2026 in R.C.No.B/68/2026, clearly indicates that as
per the findings recorded in paragraph Nos.3 to 10 of the said
report, the petitioner is eligible for consideration of petitioner’s
case for allotment of the Fair Price Shop in respect of FPS
No.2246023, Rajuladevarapadu Village, on compassionate
grounds. However, the order impugned, without considering all
the relevant aspects, mechanically rejected the request of the
petitioner solely on the ground that she is the widowed daughter
12
of the deceased dealer. This Court is of the opinion that the said
plea raised is untenable in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 02.06.2026 in
particular the observation at paras 25, 26 and 27 passed in
“KULSUM NISHA v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS” (referred
to and extracted below).
“25. Bearing in mind the object of the provision, that is to
provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of
the deceased dealer and to ensure continuity of public
distribution system, on purposive interpretation, the words
“unmarried, legally separated and widowed
daughters” in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, have to be
read so as to include married daughters provided
they fulfill other eligibility conditions laid down in
G.O. for the following reasons: –
(i) The words “unmarried, legally separated and widowed
daughters” illustrate the specific categories of daughters
who are expressly included. There is no express language of
exclusion. The enumeration is a description of class of
daughters who by reason of remaining in or returning to
natal household, are most visibly placed in position of
dependency. The absence of exclusionary language in
respect of married daughters reflects an illustrative and not
exhaustive character of enumeration;
(ii) The 2016 Order in Clause 2(p) itself defines one of the
categories of family members as “Adult children who are
13fully dependent on the head of the family”, without any
qualification of marital status or gender.
(iii) The object of dependent quota is unambiguously
welfare oriented, that is to provide for immediate financial
relief to dependent family member of deceased dealer and
to ensure continuity of public distribution system.
Dependency and not the marital status is the governing
criteria of the G.O.
(iv) The descriptive categories of daughters in Clause 2(p)
of 2016 Order whether unmarried, legally separated or
widowed share a common characteristic that is they remain
or have returned to their natal family. They are united by
functional criteria of dependency. A married daughter who
has not departed from the natal household and is
dependent upon it, shares the same functional
characteristic.
(v) The submission that a married daughter necessarily fails
to satisfy the local residence cannot be a requirement and
therefore dependent, needs a factual inquiry to be made in
every case. A blanket exclusion of all married
daughters on such a speculative presumption is
unjustified and is constitutionally untenable.
(vi) To read the words “unmarried, legally separated
and widowed daughters” in Clause 2(p) of 2016
Order would produce a result which is inconsistent
14
with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and
15(1) as the same would amount to exclusion of a
married daughter on a gender-based stereotype
which is constitutionally impermissible.
(vii) The exclusion of married daughter who is dependent
upon the deceased dealer and resides with the family and is
a capable of running the fair price shop would directly
frustrate the purpose of the provision.
To sum up, the expression “daughter” in Clause 2(p) of
2016 Order, has to be read to include a married daughter
provided she establishes the dependency on the deceased
dealer and satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed
under the G.O. including the requirement of local residence.
26. For the foregoing reasons, on a purposive construction
of Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, we hold that the expression
“daughters” used in the aforesaid provision includes a
married daughter who furnishes a dependency certificate
along with No Objection Certificates from other adult family
members of the deceased dealer and is a local resident and
satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed in the G.O.
The provision, so construed, would neither suffer from any
invalidity nor any constitutional infirmity. It is saved by the
very meaning it bears when understood in the light of its
purpose.
15
27. We are in agreement with the view taken in Vimla
Srivastava (supra) by the Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court and the decisions of the Bombay, Karnataka and
Calcutta High Courts which have recognised the principle
that marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for
denying the benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise
eligible daughter. To the extent the contrary view expressed
in Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata (supra), does not
lay down the correct law and stand overruled.
9. In so far as the plea raised by the learned Assistant
Government pleader regarding the delay on the part of the
petitioner in approaching the Court is concerned, the same
is unsustainable and is accordingly rejected in view of the
observations of the Apex Court in Sunil Rai’s case,
extracted below:
The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2022 SCC
Online SC 232 in Sunil Kumar Rai & Others Vs. State of
Bihar & Others dt. 21.02.2022 at Paras 7, 8, 10, 11,
observed as under :
Para 7: Article 32 of the Constitution provides for a
Fundamental Right to approach the Supreme Court for
enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. The founding
fathers contemplated that the very right to approach this
Court when there is a violation of Fundamental Rights,
should be declared as beyond the reach of Parliament and,
therefore, it is as a part of judicial review that the right
under Article 32 has been put in place and invoked from
time to time. That in a given case, the Court may refuse to
16entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is
solely a part of self-restraint which is exercised by the Court
having regard to various considerations which are germane
to the interest of justice as also the appropriateness of the
Court to interfere in a particular case. The right under
Article 32 of the Constitution remains a Fundamental Right
and it is always open to a person complaining of violation of
Fundamental Rights to approach this Court. This is, no
doubt, subject to the power of the Court to relegate the
party to other proceedings.
Para 8 : At the heart of the Constitution lies certain
principles which have, in fact, been recognised as part of
the basic structure. Article 14 of the Constitution proclaims
right to equality. The right against unfair State action is part
of Article 14. Unequals being treated equally is tabooed
under Article 14 of the Constitution. A person entitled to be
treated as a member of Scheduled Tribe under Article 342,
cannot be treated on par with a person who is brought in by
an incompetent Body, viz., the State in the manner done.
Article 21 of the Constitution again is the fountain head of
many rights which are part of the grand mandate which has
been from time to time unravelled by this Court giving rise
to the theory of unenumerated rights under the
Constitution. While liberty is a dynamic concept capable of
encompassing within it a variety of Rights, the irreducible
minimum and at the very core of liberty, is freedom from
unjustifiable custody.
10. We may take up the first preliminary objection by the
State, namely, that the petitioners have approached this
Court with considerable delay. The impugned Notification is
issued in August, 2016. A person cannot be said to be
aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of
a law by itself. In fact, the Court may refuse to examine the
legality or the validity of a law or order on the basis that he
may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved
person. No doubt, the Courts have recognized challenge to
even a legislation at the hands of a public interest litigant.
However, we may only indicate, ordinarily, the Court may
insist on a cause of action and therefore, a person must be
an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge. We must not be
oblivious to the fact that based on the Notification, it
appears that FIRs came to be lodged by persons claiming to
17
be members of the Scheduled Tribe community and seeking
to invoke the 1989 Act. The FIRs lodged in the year 2020
occasioned the petitioners to approach Courts seeking
protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Two of the
petitioners have not secured such protection. Petitioner No.
1, it appears was not arrested. But even assuming for a
moment, that the petitioners have come with some delay,
we find reassurance from the opinion of this Court in the
judgment reported in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v.
Union of India (2015) 3 SCC 1, wherein this Court has inter
alia held as follows:–
32. “…..Further, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Municipal Corpn., it has now been conclusively
held that all fundamental rights cannot be
waived (at para 29). Given these important
developments in the law, the time has come for
this Court to say that at least when it comes to
violations of the fundamental right to life and
personal liberty, delay or laches by itself
without more would not be sufficient to shut the
doors of the court on any petitioner.”
11. Therefore, we do not think we should be
detained by the objection. We would think that delay
by itself cannot be used as a weapon to Veto an
action under Article 32 when violation of
Fundamental Rights is clearly at stake.
10. This Court opines that the observations of the Apex
Court extracted above in the Sunil Rai‘s Case negative the
oral plea of the respondents in so far as attributing delay
as a ground to deny relief or justice to the petitioner.
11. Since the said oral plea of delay is not reflected in the order
impugned dated 11.03.2026 issued by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Khammam District, this Court opines that the said plea
18
cannot be taken at this length of this time, when the petitioner
had obtained orders in favour of the petitioner on an earlier
occasion in W.P.No.32726 of 2025 dated 27.11.2025 and since
the said order had attained its finality.
12. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the
reasons stated in the counter affidavit for denying the
prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ
Petition do not reflect in the order impugned,
dated 11.03.2026 issued by the 3nd respondent herein, and
this Court opines that the said pleas are hence
impermissible under law as per the judgment of the Apex
Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and Others reported in (1978) 1
SCC 405 and in particular at para No.8 of the said
judgment it is observed as under:-
8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory
functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity
must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be
supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the
time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by
additional grounds later brought ,out. We may here draw
attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji“Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory
authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making the order of
what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he
19intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities
are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect
the actings and conduct of those to whom they are
addressed and must be construed objectively with
reference to the language used in the order itself.”
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older:
13. A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in a
judgment reported in 2013 (4) ALD 501 (DB) dealing with
a situation where compassionate appointment was denied
to a married daughter on the ground that she did not place
any material to show that she was dependent on her father
in “Commissioner of Police and others v K.Padmaja” at
para 8 and 9, observed as follows:
8) As evident from the scheme notified by the
Government, the dependent children of a deceased
Government servant who dies in harness are eligible for
compassionate appointment to the Ministerial posts,
such as Clerks, Typists, Steno-typists etc. When a
doubt had arisen whether a married daughter can
be considered to extend the benefit of
compassionate appointment, it is clarified in the
orders issued by the Government itself in G.O.Ms.
No. 350, dated 30.07.1999 and further orders
dated 08.10.2003 issued in memo No.
116417/Ser.A/2003-1, that married daughters are
entitled for consideration for appointment on
compassionate grounds, subject to eligibility as
per the scheme notified in this regard. A certificate
issued by the Spl. Grade Deputy Collector, Ranga Reddy
District is placed on record certifying the financial
position of the applicant as unsound. Even in the report
20submitted by the Station House Officer, Ghatkesar, in
clear terms it is stated that the applicant and her
husband were living in the house of the deceased Sri K.
Ramachandra Raju and were also taking care of widow
of Sri K. Ramachandra Raju.
9. Basing on the additional material placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, before this Court to-
day, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
petitioners that the applicant and her husband were
staying separately with their own income. A perusal of
report dated 15.06.2013 makes it clear that the husband
of the applicant is an unemployee. Even with regard to
income of the applicant, it is clearly stated that she is
staying in the outhouse of house bearing No. 2-2-12/6,
D.D. Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad and is eking
livelihood by sewing clothes. There is no other material
to reject the claim of the applicant as she is not having
definite income of her own and she was dependant on
her late father. 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 her
mother (widow of the deceased employee). No valid
reasons were recorded by the authorities, to reject
the claim of the applicant for compassionate
appointment. Even by way of counter, no reasons
were added to support the order passed by the
authorities. Except the contention of the petitioners
that the respondent is getting some income by sewing
clothes and residing separately in an out-house, and, a
vague report placed on record today, there is no other
material to show that she is having definite income on
her own. Even as per the said applicant’s report,
husband is stated to be unemployed. Yet another
defence is taken by the learned counsel that as the wife
21
of the deceased is getting family pension, the applicant
is not entitled for compassionate appointment. But the
same cannot be accepted. Merely because family
pension is being paid to the wife of the deceased, the
same is not a ground to deprive the benefit of
compassionate appointment under this scheme notified
by the Government for the children of the deceased who
died in harness.”
14. In “C.B.Muthamma v. Union of India“
MANU/SC/0580/1979: (1979) 4 SCC 260, the Hon’ble
Apex Court at paragraph No. 6 observed as 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. 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 diplomatic assignment has been filled by women,
the inference of diehard allergy to gender parity is
inevitable.
15. In “N. Uma vs. The Director of Elementary School
Education & others“, in Writ Petition No. 25366 of 2008,
22
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. 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 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.”
23
16. In “Mamata Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
others, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla”
(judgment dated 20.12.2016 in CWP No.4609 of 2021), in
a similar issue which arose with regard to non
consideration of married daughter for compassionate
appointment, observed as under:
“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 could not withstand
the test of Article 15 of the Constitution of India.”
17. In “Udham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank
Ltd. & another vs. Anjula Singh and others”
MANU/UC/0459/2019 : 2019 (3) STC 570 (Uttarakhand) :
24
(2019) 2 UPLB EC1, the High Court of Uttarakhand (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.”
18. In the case of R. Govindammal Vs. Principal
Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme
Department, Chennai in MANU/TN/2247/2015 : 2015 (5)
CTC 344, the learned Judge had directed the first
respondent to provide compassionate appointment to the
petitioner, as she is otherwise eligible, without reference
to marriage. In the said order, the learned Judge issued a
direction to the Chief Secretary of the Tamil Nadu
Government, to suitably modify the Government Order in
25
G.O.Ms. No. 165, Labour and Employment Department,
dated 30.08.2010.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment
dated 02.06.2026 in Civil Appeal No.7667 of 2025 and the
relevant paragraph Nos.25 (vi), (viii), 26,28 and 29
observed as under:-
25. Bearing in mind the object of the provision, that is to
provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of the
deceased dealer and to ensure continuity of public distribution
system, on purposive interpretation, the words “unmarried,
legally separated and widowed daughters” in Clause 2(p) of 2016
Order, have to be read so as to include married daughters
provided they fulfil other eligibility conditions laid down in G.O.
for the following reasons: –
(vi) To read the words “unmarried, legally
separated and widowed daughters” in Clause 2(p) of
2016 Order would produce a result which is
inconsistent with constitutional guarantees
under Articles 14 and 15(1) as the same would
amount to exclusion of a married daughter on a
gender-based stereotype which is constitutionally
impermissible.
(vii) The exclusion of married daughter who is
dependent upon the deceased dealer and resides with
the family and is a capable of running the fair price
shop would directly frustrate the purpose of the
provision.
26. For the foregoing reasons, on a purposive construction of
Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, we hold that the expression
“daughters” used in the aforesaid provision includes a married
daughter who furnishes a dependency certificate along with
No Objection Certificates from other adult family members of the
deceased dealer and is a local resident and satisfies all other
eligibility conditions prescribed in the G.O. The provision, so
26
construed, would neither suffer from any invalidity nor any
constitutional infirmity. It is saved by the very meaning it bears
when understood in the light of its purpose.
28. In the present case, the material on record establishes that
the appellant continued to reside in the same village even after
her marriage and actively assisted her mother in the operation of
the fair price shop. The appellant upon her mother’s demise,
assumed responsibility for maintaining her sisters, including
a visually impaired sister. The authorities have not disputed
these factual assertions. The sole ground on which her
application was rejected was that she is a married
daughter. Once that ground is held to be constitutionally
invalid, no impediment survives to the grant of relief in
her favour.
20. The object of compassionate appointment is a social
security measure to support the family of the deceased
employee, 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 relieve 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 one of the dependents of
the deceased employee to look after the family. The said
27
relief should not be denied whimsically on frivolous
grounds. This Court opines that the petitioner’s request for
compassionate appointment cannot be rejected
unilaterally, mechanically in a routine casual manner
defeating the very object of the compassionate
appointment.
21. This Court opines that in view of the object of the
compassionate appointment as explained as above, and
the observations in the various Judgments referred to and
extracted above and the principle laid down that marital
status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying the
benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible
daughter, in respect of appointment of the petitioner as
Fair price shop dealer for fair price shop No.2246023
situated at Rajuladevarapadu Village, Yerrupalem Mandal,
Khammam District, since the words “daughter” in clause
2 (P) of 2016 order has to be read to include a married
daughter provided she establishes the dependency on the
deceased dealer and satisfies all other eligibility conditions
prescribed under the G.O. including the requirement of the
local residence. Hence, this Court concludes that petitioner
28
is entitled for grant of relief of reconsideration of
petitioner’s case for appointment as fair price shop dealer
for fair price shop No.2246023 situated at
Rajuladevarapadu Village, Yerrupalem Mandal, Khammam
District, in view of the fact that marital status whether
unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters
cannot constitute a valid ground for denying the benefit of
a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter.
22. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case,
(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1,
(c) The order impugned being bereft of reasons,
(d) The enquiry report with its findings in favour of
the petitioner herein dated 28.01.2026 vide
R.C.No.B/68/2026 of the Tahsildar, Yerrupalem Mandal,
Khammam District,
29
(e) The letter of the 3rd respondent
dated 11.03.2026 in R.C.No.A1/1033/2024 addressed to
the petitioner herein,
(f) The observations of the Apex Court and other
various High Courts (referred and extracted above),
(g) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para
Nos.7 to 21 of the present order,
The writ petition is allowed. The order impugned
vide Rc.No.A1/1033/2024 dated 11.03.2026 issued by
the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam,
i.e., the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside and the matter
is remitted to the respondent No.3 for reconsideration of
the petitioner’s request for allotment of the Fair Price
Shop dealership of FPS No.2246023, Rajuladevarapadu
Village, Yerrupalem Mandal on compassionate grounds
duly taking into consideration the observations in the
Judgments of the Apex Court and other High Courts
(referred to and extracted above), duly examining all the
relevant documents submitted by the petitioner in
support of the petitioner’ case and duly considering the
findings in the enquiry report dated 28.01.2026 issued in
favour of the petitioner herein by the Office of the
30Tahsildar, Yerrupalem, duly considering the very scheme
and object of compassionate appointment and pass
appropriate reasoned order in accordance to law in
conformity with the principles of natural justice by
providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date
of the receipt of the copy of the order and duly
communicate the decision to the petitioner herein.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition,
shall stand closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 16.06.2026
Dsu
