ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who happens to be the married daughter of the deceased employee late Omkar Prasad Verma has filed this petition seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of her father. He was working as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat, Bartori, Janpad Panchayat, Tilda, District – Raipur who died in harness on 26/12/2021. Following prayer has been made by the petitioner in this petition - “i. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 02/09/2022 and pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. ii. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly declare the cause No.3 of the compassionate appointment policy dated 27/02/2015 to be void and inoperative so far excluding the married daughter/women from entitlement towards compassionate appointment. iii. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be call for the records for its kind perusal which relates to petitioner’s matter. iv. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case in nutshell as projected in the writ petition is that the deceased employee left behind his legal heirs wife namely Vijay Kumari and three daughters namely Mamta Rani Verma, Deepmala and Dikeshwari. After the death of her father, the petitioner without any delay made an application on 24/01/2022 to respondent No.4 i.e. District Panchayat, Raipur along with consent letter of mother and two sisters and necessary testimonials and other relevant documents making a prayer therein to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The application was forwarded by respondent No.5 vide its letter dated 01/02/2022 to respondent No.4 for further action. The application for grant of compassionate appointment was put up before the concerned committee on 24/02/2022 and the committee took a decision to the effect that suitable direction is required from respondent No.2 in the light of circular dated 23/03/2019 issued by General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh which included a provision that the married daughter is also entitled to compassionate appointment whereas the internal circular of the Panchayat Department dated 27/02/2015, the word ‘unmarried’ has not been removed. A request was made to respondent No.2 by respondent No.4 to give suitable direction on the issue involved so that the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment may be decided. A request was made to respondent No.2 by respondent No.4 to give suitable direction on the issue involved so that the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment may be decided. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 02/09/2022, placing reliance on the communication dated 20/07/2022, the application of the petitioner for grant compassionate appointment was rejected giving reason that the married daughters are not entitled for compassionate appointment. This is under challenge before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Return on behalf of respondents have been filed. Respondents 4 and 5 have pleaded in the return that they have to follow the instructions issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, CG dated 27/02/2015 and as such, the married daughters are not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. Hence, her application was rejected. There cannot be any deviation from the policy/directions dated 27/02/2015. Hence, until and unless the policy provides for entitlement of the petitioner being a married daughter to be appointed on compassionate grounds, such appointment cannot take place. 4. Learned State counsel submits that adopts the pleadings of respondents 4 and 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned communication dated 02/09/2022 is bad in law and in direct violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also gender biased. He submits that there cannot be any discrimination between a married son and a married daughter and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside directing respondents 4 and 5 to consider the case to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He further submits that this issue is no longer res integra in the light of judgment of this Court with regard to entitlement of compassionate appointment of married daughter which came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Smt. Sarojini Bhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors., 2015 SCC Online Chh. 395 wherein following observations were made - “19. The policy of State Government 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. A daughter even after marriage remains the daughter of her father and she cannot be treated as not belonging to her father's family. 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 the welfare provision contained in 125(1)(d) Cr.P.C. have clearly held in Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat (supra) 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. x x x x x x 27. 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. In the case in hand, the married son is entitled for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father or mother as the case may be but that is not so with the unmarried daughter as such disqualification is based on sex. Thus, it is a clear case of discrimination on the basis of sex which is in teeth of Constitutional mandate guaranteed under Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. 28. 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 State 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. 29. 29. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussion, writ petition is allowed and consequently Clause 3(1)(c) of policy relating to compassionate appointment dated 10/06/2003 and Clause 5(c) of policy dated 14/06/2013 being violative and discriminatory to the extent of excluding married daughter for consideration from compassionate appointment are hereby declared void and inoperative and consequently the impugned order (Annexure-P/3) rejecting the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment is quashed. The respondents/State is directed to reconsider the claim of petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground afresh in accordance with law keeping in view that her father died on 06/01/2011 and her application was rejected on 28/09/2011, preferably within a period of forty five days from the receipt of certified copy of order. No order as to cost(s).” 6. He submits that the case of Sarojini Bhoi (supra) was with regard to the policy of compassionate appointment of General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh and this Court found policy to be violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 (2) of the Constitution of India and direction was issued to amend the same. He further places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Asha Pandey v. Coal India Ltd. and ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 2408. The case of Asha Pandey (supra) is with regard to policy of Coal India Limited wherein there was no provision for appointment on compassionate ground to a married daughter which also was considered to be bad in law. Similar policy was considered in the case of C.G.State Electricity Holding Company Limited v. Chandrani Sinha, 2016 SCC OnLine Chh 1519 and similar law has been laid down. He further submits that entitlement of married daughter for appointment on compassionate ground has been held to be in their favour in various judgments as quoted above and therefore, the panchayat department cannot have different policy in the teeth of various orders passed by this Court which has been quoted above. He goes on to submit that vide Annexure P/7 letter dated 03/03/2022, this clarification was sought by respondent No.4 from the Directorate of Panchayat, however, as it appears that no such clarification was given and ultimately resulting in rejection of application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. He goes on to submit that vide Annexure P/7 letter dated 03/03/2022, this clarification was sought by respondent No.4 from the Directorate of Panchayat, however, as it appears that no such clarification was given and ultimately resulting in rejection of application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the law in this regard is very well settled that compassionate appointment can only be considered in the light of policy which is prevailing, therefore, the respondents were well within their right to reject the application for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. She places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari an ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 175, para 16.4 which is quoted herein below - “16.4. The existence of a policy issued by the State Government is a sine qua non for making appointments on compassionate basis, vide Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 ,; State Bank of India vs. Surya Narain Tripathi, 2014 (15) SCC 739 . The appointments must follow the stipulations made in the policy. It is therefore a no-brainer that in the absence of a policy governing compassionate appointment to posts under a local authority, no appointment could be made to such an authority on compassionate grounds.” 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The entitlement of married daughter to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground is no longer res integra so far as the appointment with the State Government is concerned in the light of judgment of this Court in Sarojini Bhoi (supra) and so far as the instrumentality of the State, same has been followed by subsequent judgments. Now, the issue which requires consideration as to whether the policy dated 27/02/2015 (Annexure P/2) is in violation of Article 14, 15 and 16 (2) that identical issues have been decided by this Court in the above stated judgments. Therefore, in the light of the settled legal position, this Court is unable to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. There cannot be any discrimination or gender bias between a son and a daughter. Therefore, in the light of the settled legal position, this Court is unable to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. There cannot be any discrimination or gender bias between a son and a daughter. From the record, it is also reflected that the other legal heirs have also consented for consideration of the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Therefore, as such it does not appear that there is any conflict of interest between the legal heirs of the deceased employee late Omkar Prasad Verma. 10. Therefore, placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Sarojini Bhoi (supra), the policy relating to compassionate appointment dated 27/02/2015 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure P/2) appears to be violative & discriminatory to the extent of excluding married daughter for consideration from compassionate appointment and is hereby declared void & inoperative and consequently, the impugned order dated 02/09/2022 (Annexure P/1) cannot stand, therefore, liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner to be appointed on compassionate ground subject to verification of other necessary requisite which are required for the same and hearing the other stakeholder if required. With these observations/directions, the petition is allowed. There is no squabble to the proposition of law as enumerated in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). However, in the case in hand, since this Court has held the impugned policy to be discriminatory, the judgment cited by respondents No.4 and 5 is of no help to respondents 4 and 5. It is expected that the Department of Panchayat would make certain amendment in the policy with regard to compassionate appointment in the light of judgment passed by this Court in Sarojini Bhoi (Supra). 11. No cost (s).