As per case facts, petitioner No. 2, a widowed sister, sought compassionate appointment after her unmarried brother, Rajaram, the sole family breadwinner, died in harness. The application was rejected by ... SECL, stating a sister is not a 'dependent' under their rules. The petitioners argued this exclusion is discriminatory and against constitutional principles, citing judgments that extended compassionate appointment to sisters. The question arose whether a wholly dependent widowed sister is eligible for compassionate appointment when the rules explicitly exclude her but include brothers, and if such exclusion is gender-discriminatory. Finally, the Court ruled that excluding sisters from dependent employment under NCWA Clause 9.3.3 is gender-biased and violates Articles 14 and 15. Relying on precedents, it held that if brothers are included, sisters should also be, interpreting masculine terms to include females. The court quashed the rejection and directed SECL to reconsider the petitioner's compassionate appointment.