E-i ii}%§ CGURE‘ :31? CHHA’E‘”MSGARE AT EELASPUR WRIT PE’i‘i‘l‘ION N0. 2154 0f2004 E‘E’l‘lTlQNER : Kamiesh Klimar Manhar, aged about 24 years. 8/0 Late Shri Bhikamial Manhar, R/o Ranisagar, Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh'(C.G.) VERSUS . State of Chhatiisgarh Through — The Secretary, Depamnent of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mann‘aiaya: Raipur (CG) 2. The Collector, Bilaspur, Distt. — Bilaspu (C.G.) 3. The Additioaal Coilectori Biiaspur, District a Bi}aspur (C.G.) 4. Tehsildar — Mawvahi, Districi — Bilaspm‘ (0.6.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTXCLE 226/227 OF EHE CONSTITUTION OF INDEA SB: Hen’ble S§1r§ Saiis}1 K. Agnihatri. J. Presem: Shri Praieek Shawna. Advoca‘ie for the petitiener. Shyi ASKaehhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondex1ts. RES¥ONDENTS 9W ORDER (Passed on 26th éay cf March, 2968) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Grade 1H (Chrk) on compassionate basis by order dated 02.12.2000 (Annexure ‘9/3). Ciause 5 of ihe terms of ihe appointment prescribes for passing Hindi Typing examination Within a yeriod of one year. Gii the same day, one Shri Manoj Siogh son of Late Shri Chaman Singh Dhananjay, was also appointed on compassionate basis 01’: the same oost of Assistant Grade ‘EH (Clerk). The appointment of the petitioner as weil as Manoj Singh were maiie 0:1 the ‘oasis of death of their resoective fathers, who oied' in hamess. Pursuaot to the oréer of appoiritment, the petitioner joined the office of Sub Tehsi], Marwahi on 13.12.2000 (Armexure PM). Tiiereaitey, the petitioner and Magoj Siiigh continued to work tili 24m of March. 200.1 (Aimexure P/S), when the Collector, Biiaspur, passed a common order that the appointment ofthe oetitioner and Manoj Singi its 77 r were nm i1: accoarézmce with {as govisiom 9f law. Sumequeniky, it was found that Manoj $ingh was re-aypcinted on the same post on 14.11.2002 (Amexure P/8) (m the baazis 0f ietmr/oréer No. 44$9/38’7/VIP/2602 dated 02.11.2002 issuad by :he Joim Secretary, Govemmeili of Ckha‘aisgarh, Revenae Depaz‘iment, Rama. }e came 0f Ehe petitic‘aer was riot considefeé for similar appointment though the petitimar and Max:103 Siizgh wera appaimred 0:1 ihe same date or: compassionate basis and their servises wers canceiled bv common order datsd 24th o? March, 2001 Annsxure PIS). They were simiiaxly ( siiuatw. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this peiitkm praying for a writ/direction directing the respondems to tseai the peti’iieeer in similaf mamer and contmue his services on the pest of Assistant Grade III. Further. the erder dated 24L“ cf March, 2001 (Amiexm‘e 13/5) in respect f the petitionel} be also quashed, as the same has been set aside by the Teseondents i1} ease of i Jr. Manoj: Singh. 3. Shri Eeteek Shanna, learned counsel apyearing for the petitioaer submits that it is a clear case of diserimizlatioe as the petitioner and Manoj Singh, both were similarly situated, they were appointed on the same date on compassionate basis era account of death of their respective iathers, who died in harness. Their aepoiritment were subsequently Canceiied uy the same order dated 24‘m of Marc}; 093 N! (Amexure W5). However, it appears that by treatiaig Manoj Singh as VIP, the order dated 14. 1 l .2062 ’Aimexure W8) was passed in favour of Marroj Singh treating his services as continuous without eay and the earlier order dated 24m of March, 2001 (Annexure P/5) in respect of him, was carioelied. The petitioner, being a commorrer, was treated U1 §i§ferent1y than Manoj Sigh as VIP, as iS dear from ietter dateci 62.11.2002 issued by the Joint Secretary, Govmmment af Chhatiisgarh, Rsvenue Department, to the Coakctor; Biiaspur. The said order dated ,2" d Novembsr, 2G02 1s - taken on record. Learned couasel furthsr submiis that this Court snquixed about the aature of the letter asto why employees are treated déiferemb’ on the basis of Vi? ietter, the Staie has failed to ftie aay response to the same. Thus, the respondents be directed to grant similar 1‘e1iet‘to the petitioner. Per contra, Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, learned Deputy Advocate General aepearing for the State/respondents submits that the VI? mentioned in the letter dated {)1} 1.2002 does not indicate the status of an employee but t‘ee status ofthe oftice or the person who has sent the letter for doing the neeefu]. Shri Kachhwaha further snbmits that since the note-sheet was received by the Revenue Depaitment, from the office of the Chief Minister, the same was treated as VIP. On the question of discrimination as to Whether two similarly situated persons can be treated differently, discriminatingly and unreasonably by the State, learned counsel has no response. Learned counsel justifies cancellation ofthe appointment by order dated 24m of Mare“ ”“01 {Armexure W5) on the basis of circular dated 01.05.2000 (Annexure R/l) for appointment on compassionate basis. The appointment shouid be done with the permission ofthe Head ofthe Department reiying on circular datedpl 05.2000 (Annemre R/ 1). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, pieadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that there is clear discrimination in treating tvifo similarly situated employees. The stand of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the letters/orders, note-sheet u”, «v z ~mrwg a We w— issued by the 0ffice of the Chief Minister/ministers are treaied as VIP: has 1’ no basis as the same is not supported by any document or any reply . Letter dated 02. 11.2002 reads as under: ‘ “WWI—c; 311m, W fé‘qm Hams: W 4409/387/?§.aa1§.1fr./2002, mg? W 02 W 2002 13%, Wm, W (Erma) m:—mmmma%w%$awm m W 2% min 0‘ § H'En‘:—W Em: m saw/W4 /2oo2 W zu‘o3‘2oe2 $1Wmin€ifmw§¥w§€a€m$aam %§§am@€—3$%wmmwm 9190fW~1 /¥%n/2ooo W$ 02.12.2ooo gm 3am m% EH an né em W W an}?! W /2974/%m—1 /¥:ma/2oo1 W 24.03.2001 gm 313W W 3min m m mm $W§E$311WWW$§VWW$ ma? 33$?! WW /‘2974/féa1—1 Kenna/2901 W 24.93.2901 J] $W§W€WW$W€$WW§§3$$§€W mm$méwa§§§aWWWWafr ‘9 We Eléawwwn"aia$a?¢'$m$awmm $W§m§'mwm@mwmwm@x J E??? 9 I ($3? 0m) V” "Hagen W Wm sum W W ku/ goam /337/ Ee‘mge‘f /2n02, may W . C0? §W:— 1. $0anw€igm§rmanmmwm awe/Eagé/w W 24.05.2302 $ W I? agom'éil .Wuammanwmma‘nm /§i5—7~4/2ce2/1 /3/W W 63.09.62 Qii 24.10. 02 $ 0mm: 13' Wei W! $130?! W WWII—gr aim—«i, W W” Be that as it may, when two candidateslésiHnlzmy situated are granted appointment on compassionaie basis or otherwise on ihe same date, their appointments were cancelled by common order dated 24.03.2001, and no different situation exist in case 0f one employee, the. order dated 14.11.2002 pursuant to the ietter dated 02.11.2002 from the Joint ID? Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Revenue Depmmem to the Collector, Bilaspur, is discrimiaatory anti against the canons of fair play and violaiive ofprinciples of equality as enshrined under A1tic1e14 and 16 ofthe Constitutioa of India. Needless to say fuxther about the conduct of the officers, it would suffice if the petitioner is treated in the same manner as the case of Manoj Singh has been considered. Both the persons were simitarly situated and the impugned order dated 24.03.2001 (Annexure P/S) was a common order canceling the appointment of the petitioner as wen as Manoj Singh. 1n View ofthe foregoing, this petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge *r ween w y