Government and PSU's keep the welfare of its employees, very high on their agenda.
However, the purpose of not including married daughters, in the definition of "Family" for the benefit of LTC/LLTC, Medical facilities etc. is based on the social and cultural realities, wherein married daughters leave their parental house and become a part of another family, that of their in-laws.
This in no way was intended to be prejudicial to the interest of the female sex, but was a mere conformity with the prevailing social norms and systems.
However, in this particular case, as can be seen that the candidate was unmarried at the time of application; and by the time the actual recruitment took place, after 4 years, she had got married.
The authorities could have ignored this fact or chosen to allowed it as a special case. However, by terminating the employee, they have not only brought misery to their organization; but have now also opened a flood gate for allowing other facilities, such as Medical, LTC/LLTC etc. to married daughters.
This is a perfect example of the insensitivities of the HR concerned, and the consequences of HR failures. Instead of trying to enforce rules with a tyrannical mind-set, HRs should remember that rules are made to help and facilitate a process; and not as a stick to beat the employees.
Had the concerned HR processed the matter as a "special case due to the delay caused in implementation of the appointment", and "not to be cited as a precedence", and got it approved by the competent authority, the matter could have been resolved amicably.
Warm regards.