Order : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the State Industrial Court Chhattisgarh, Raipur in civil appeal no.05/C.G.I.R. Act/A/11/2014 arising out of order dated 04.03.2014 passed by the learned Labour Court Durg in Civil Case No.12/C.G.I.R. Act/2011. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to reinstate the petitioner along with full back wages. (iv) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. (v) Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the father of the petitioner namely B. Kalayya being an unfit employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, as declared by Disability Medical Board held on 04.05.2000, was terminated from service vide order dated 20.05.2000 (Annexure-P/3). The petitioner proposed the name of the petitioner, who is his deserted daughter to provide her employment on compassionate ground. The request of the petitioner's father was accepted by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground as Trainee Attendant -cum-Junior Staff after due process and thereafter an offer of appointment on compassionate ground was executed on 15.03.2010. Subsequently, during the course of service, the petitioner was charge sheeted for committing misconduct under the relevant provisions of respondent Department, against which the petitioner filed reply. The departmental enquiry proceeding was conducted and she appeared before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and recorded statement of the petitioner and her father and mother. The enquiry was completed and vide order dated 09.02.2011 the respondent No.1 removed the service of the petitioner holding that the petitioner has submitted false information in the offer of appointment with regard to her matrimonial status. The order of removal was challenged by the petitioner before Labour Court by filing an application under section 31(3) r/s 61 of the Industrial Relation Act, 1961. On 20.06.2012 the Labour Court allowed the application of the petitioner holding that the proceeding of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is illegal and unfair and set-aside the proceedings of departmental enquiry. The order of removal was challenged by the petitioner before Labour Court by filing an application under section 31(3) r/s 61 of the Industrial Relation Act, 1961. On 20.06.2012 the Labour Court allowed the application of the petitioner holding that the proceeding of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is illegal and unfair and set-aside the proceedings of departmental enquiry. The order dated 20.06.2012 was challenged by the respondents before the State Industrial Court Raipur and the State Industrial Court Raipur vide its order dated 15.03.2013 holding that the petitioner was charge sheeted under the provision of 29 (IV) of the Standing Order of the Plant and enquiry was conducted according to that provision and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, therefore the finding of the Labour Court that the principle of natural justice was not complied is correct and justified and dismissed the Misc. Petition application with direction to the parties to produce evidence on merits before Labour Court. Thereafter again the Labour Court vide its order dated 04.03.2014 holding that the proceeding of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is illegal and unfair, but the petitioner failed to prove her case and dismissed the application under section 31 read with section 61 of the C.G. Industrial Relation Act, 1960. The petitioner challenged the order dated 04.03.2014 on various ground before State Industrial Court Chhattisgarh Raipur and the State Industrial Court Chhattisgarh Raipur vide its order impugned dated 07.07.2014 dismissed the case of the petitioner holding that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Labour Court and it does not call for any interference and accordingly rejected the appeal, against which the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Courts below have failed to consider that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is not fair and is full of malafide intention, as the petitioner's co-worker was forced not to attend the enquiry proceeding as a co-worker and therefore enquiry proceeding is bad in law. The learned Courts below have failed to consider that once there is findings recorded by the Courts below that the departmental enquiry is illegal and unfair, the petitioner deserves for reinstatement along with full back wages. The learned Courts below have failed to consider that once there is findings recorded by the Courts below that the departmental enquiry is illegal and unfair, the petitioner deserves for reinstatement along with full back wages. The learned Courts below failed to see that the petitioner's status being a deserted wife, the petitioner is unable to lead her life. The service on the compassionate ground was provided to the petitioner on the ground that her mother and father may lead their life on the shoulder of her daughter. The learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the service was provided to the petitioner on compassionate ground considering the application of the petitioner's father who was terminated from service on the ground of medically unfit. The learned Courts below failed to consider that the petitioner was given service before marriage and thus there is no misconduct as per standing order as mentioned in section 29 (IV) of the Standing order of Plant. He further submits that petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the order/judgment passed by this Court on 17-07-2023 in WPL No.110/2014 parties being Chandramani vs The General Manager (HRD) Bhilai Steel Plant and another. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the petitioner be reinstated in service with full back wages. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsels and submits that the petitioner is a married daughter, as such she is not dependent upon any elderly member of the family and as per the guideline issued in this regard, only dependent member of the family of physically disabled employee can be granted compassionate appointment, but since the petitioner is the married daughter, she can not be said to be dependent upon her father and due to suppression of the said fact while submitting her documents, she has committed act of misconduct. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents on compassionate ground on behalf of her father who was medically unfit and was terminated from service, but subsequently the petitioner was terminated on the ground that she is a married daughter and she has concealed the said fact while submitting her documents at the time of her appointment. The petitioner challenged the same before the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court, but her case has not been considered and has been rejected. 7. This Court in the matter of Chandramani (supra) held in paras 10,11,12 &13 as under :- “10. The policy that unmarried daughter(s) is/are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment is based on the ground that on marriage she becomes a member of her husband's family and ceased to be member of her father's family. But a daughter even after marriage remains the daughter of her father and she cannot be treated as not belonging to her father's family. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with status of married daughter, have clearly held in Dr.(Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai and another, (1987) 2 SCC 278 that daughter after her marriage doesn't cease to be daughter of the father or mother and obliged to maintain their parents and daughter cannot be allowed to escape its responsibility on the ground that she is now married, therefore, such a policy of the State Government disqualifying, a married daughter and excluding her from consideration apart from being arbitrary and discriminating is retrograde step of State Government as welfare State, on which stamp of approval cannot be made by this Court. 11. In the matter of Shreejith L. v. Director of Education, Kerala, (2012) 7 SCC 248 , Their Lordships have held that marriage by itself does not disqualify the person concerned from seeking employment and held as under:- “28. ..............While it is true that marriage by itself does not in view of the language employed in the scheme, disqualify the person concerned from seeking a compassionate appointment...............” 12. In above-stated judgment with reference to Constitutional provisions, it has clearly been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that no discrimination can be made in public employment on gender basis as Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India clearly provides that no citizen shall on the ground of sex be ineligible or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State. 13. 13. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis, it emanates that institution of marriage is an important and basic civil right of man and woman and marriage by itself is not a disqualification and impugned policy of the Government barring and prohibiting the consideration of the married daughter from seeking compassionate appointment merely on the ground of marriage is plainly arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantee envisaged in Article 14, 15 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India being unconstitutional.” 8. In this case also, initially the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in place of her father, who was terminated from service due to medically unfit, but subsequently the services of the petitioner were terminated on the sole ground that she is a married daughter and her case has also not been considered by the Labour Court and Industrial Court. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by this Court as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 07-07-2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Court, order dated 04-03-2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Labour Court and the order dated 09.02.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the respondent authorities are hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service w.e.f. 09.02.2011 along with 50% back wages. 9. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.