AP High Court: Married Daughter Cannot Be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely Due to Marital Status

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a married daughter of a deceased government employee cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment solely because of her marital status. The court observed that marriage does not end a daughter’s relationship with her parental family or automatically mean that she is no longer dependent on her parents. It directed the authorities to reconsider the daughter’s claim without treating her status as a married woman as a ground for rejection.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Balaji Medamalli passed the order while allowing a writ petition challenging the rejection of a married daughter’s application for compassionate appointment. The case concerned the family of an Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) driver who died while in service, leaving behind his wife, a son and a married daughter.

After the employee’s death, his wife approached the authorities and requested compassionate appointment for her daughter. The daughter was married to an unemployed man, and the petitioners claimed that both of them were entirely dependent on the deceased employee. They also stated that the deceased’s son was living separately in Bengaluru and was not looking after the family.

The deceased employee’s wife submitted the required documents, including the application form, family member certificate, no-earning-member certificate and no-property certificate, along with other relevant records. However, the authorities rejected the application on November 18, 2023, on the ground that the daughter was married and was therefore ineligible for compassionate appointment under G.O.Ms.No.350, issued by the General Administration (SER-A) Department on July 30, 1999.

The petitioners challenged the rejection before the High Court, arguing that a daughter does not cease to be a member of her parental family merely because she gets married. They submitted that the daughter continued to depend on her deceased father and that her marital status could not be a valid reason to deny her claim.

On the other hand, APSRTC argued that under G.O.Ms.No.350, a married daughter could be considered for compassionate appointment only if the deceased employee had no other children. Since the deceased had also left behind a son, the corporation contended that the daughter did not fulfil the eligibility conditions.

While examining the issue, the High Court considered the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.350, which allow a married daughter to be considered for compassionate appointment in specified circumstances. These include cases where she is the deceased employee’s only child, has no other siblings, the deceased’s spouse is unwilling to accept compassionate appointment, and the daughter was dependent on the deceased, subject to the other conditions of the scheme.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kulsum Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2026). The Supreme Court had observed that excluding a married daughter while treating a married son as part of the family was based on a gender stereotype and was inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of equality.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that marital status has no rational connection with a person’s dependency on their parents. It held that assuming a daughter automatically stops being a member of, or dependent on, her parental family after marriage is not constitutionally acceptable. The court noted that many married daughters continue to live with their parents, support them financially or remain dependent on them.

Considering these principles and the facts of the case, the High Court held that the daughter’s claim deserved consideration because she was stated to be dependent on the deceased government employee. It found that the rejection order dated November 18, 2023, was legally unsustainable because it relied on her status as a married daughter.

The court also noted that APSRTC had since merged with the state government and that the District Collector was the competent authority to consider the claim.

Accordingly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the rejection order and directed the District Collector to reconsider the daughter’s application for compassionate appointment without rejecting it on the ground that she was married. The court directed the authority to complete the exercise within four months from the date of receipt of its order.

The ruling clarifies that a married daughter’s claim for compassionate appointment must be assessed in accordance with the applicable scheme and the relevant facts, rather than being rejected merely because of her marital status.

• Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)