IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1708 of 2010 UMESH SINGH S/O LATE KHEYALI SINGH R/O QTR. NO. 7/12, NEW C.I.D. COLONY, P.S.- SHASRI NAGAR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA ZONE, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HEADQUARTER, PATNA 5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (C), CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA null null 8. THE SERGEANT MAJOR, CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 9. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HEAD QUARTER, ADMINISTRATION, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 3.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed initially by District Order No. 2787 of 1986 as a general Constable and was allotted Brass No. 1190. By Aurangabad District Order No. 626 of 1991, it appears that he participated in a selection process and then was appointed in the post of Driver Constable category which is separate cadre. He continued to discharge his duties in that manner till he represented in January, 2009, that he was finding it difficult for health reasons to continue with the duties as Driver and that he may be given lighter duties. He also mentioned the names of certain 2 others who were shifted from the category of Driver Constable to a General Constable. He further relies upon more similar orders at Annexures- 8 and 9. The petitioner in his representation relied upon Rule 1185 (C) and 1186 of the Bihar Police Manual. The submission therefore is of hostile discrimination. Learned counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submitted that under Rule 1185 (C) and 1186 of the Bihar Police Manual, there is no provision for conversion of service from a Driver Constable to General Constable. However, while dealing with the allegation of discrimination by the petitioner, the counter affidavit states that it has no comment to make upon the same. The respondents by an order dated 11.12.2009 have already made recommendation to consider him allocation of lighter duty in the cadre of Driver Constable. Learned counsel for the State urges that there can be no discrimination by taking resort to Article 14 in the negative. If the benefit had been wrongly granted to others contrary to the provisions of the Police Manual that cannot be a ground for the petitioner to claim parity in illegality. There is no occasion for this Court discussing the provisions of the Manual in view of the specific stand 3 taken on behalf of the respondents. This Court upholds the objection of the respondents to dismiss the writ petition. It however issues a mandamus to the respondents that they have a constitutional obligation to treat all employees similarly situated in like manner and they cannot discriminate between persons similarly situated which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are directed to reexamine all such cases referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition of conversion from the cadre of Driver Constable to General Constable which the respondents in their own counter affidavit have stated is not permissible in law. Let appropriate action in accordance with their own stand be taken by the respondents within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The respondents are cautioned to do so in accordance with law after show cause and not to pass orders in a manner sanguine that they shall immediately be upset by this Court. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)