ORDER 1. This writ petition is heard as a contested application upon notice to the respondents and the respondents have appeared before this court and have filed their respective affidavits. This writ petition is directed against an order of termination of service of the petitioner. It appears that one Kartick Chandra Saha was an employee under the Calcutta Tramways Co., an undertaking of the State Government under the Calcutta Tramways (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act 1976. The said Kartick Chandra Saha adopted the petitioner as his son and it is contended by the petitioner that such adoption was made in accordance with the Hindu Law and by such adoption the petitioner became the son of the said Kartick Chandra Saha both in law and also in religion. The said Kartick Chandra Saha nominated the petitioner as his son for the purpose of being employed after the death or retirement of the said Shri Saha. It may be stated in this connection that the government is following a policy under which the son of an employee of the Calcutta Tramways Co. who dies in harness is given an appointment in the said company. On the basis of the said nomination given by Kartick Chandra Saha in favour of the petitioner declaring him as his son, the petitioner was given a provisional appointment subject to police verification. The police verification report was received by the Tramways Co., and it transpired from the said report that the petitioner was the adopted son of the said Kartick Chandra Saha but not his natural son. It appears that the Tramways Co., referred the matter to the Home (Transport) Department for its views as to whether or not an adopted son can be treated as a natural son and as such the appointment of Shri Pradip Chandra Saha as the son of Kartick Chandra Saha should be accepted by the Tramways Co. It appears that by a memorandum no. 7761-WT/7T8/79 dated 14/16th June, 1982, the Deputy Secretary, Home (Transport) Department informed the Administrator of the Undertaking that under the existing guidelines laid down by the government, the adopted son could not be treated as relation and as such the petitioner could not be given appointment. Pursuant to such decision made by the Home (Transport) Department, the petitioner's service had been terminated by the said Tramways Co. Pursuant to such decision made by the Home (Transport) Department, the petitioner's service had been terminated by the said Tramways Co. The instant writ petition has been moved against the said order of termination. 2. The petitioner has contended that the fact of adoption was not denied by the Tramways Co. but the termination order was passed simply on the footing that an adopted son could not be treated as a relation within the meaning of the Government policy. The policy of the government has been disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Tramways Co. In the said circular containing the policy decision, no distinction has been made between natural son and the adopted son and the only expression which has been referred to in such circular is son of the employee. The petitioner contends that whenever an adoption is validly taken in accordance with the Hindu Law, a Hindu becomes the son of the adoptive father and no distinction can be made between the natural son and the adopted son. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents nos. 2 to 4 it has been stated that the Undertaking was not aware about any alleged adoption and in the nomination filed in the Undertaking, the said Kartick Chandra Saha, ex-employee did not declare the petitioner as his adopted son but the said ex-employee filled up his nomination on 16th May, 1979, declaring the relationship of the nominee with the employee as son. The petitioner rightly contends before this court that the declaration was not made incorrectly and. after the adoption, the adopted son become son of the adoptive father and it is not necessary to declare such adopted son as adopted son and if he had described the petitioner, his adopted son as son then no incorrect description had been made. 3. Mr. Roy Choudhury, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents nos. 5 and 6, namely, the natural parents of the petitioner has also contended that if any distinction is sought to be made between the adopted son and the natural son for the purpose of giving appointment as nominated by the ex-employee, then such discrimination will violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. 5 and 6, namely, the natural parents of the petitioner has also contended that if any distinction is sought to be made between the adopted son and the natural son for the purpose of giving appointment as nominated by the ex-employee, then such discrimination will violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Roy Choudhury has contended that with the object if the scheme, namely, to give concession to an ex-employee to accommodate one of his close relations or sons, there cannot be any reasonable nexus for different classification in the matter of son and the adopted son. He, therefore, submits that the contention made by the Home Department is not only contrary to the circular issued by the government but such interpretation offends Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. In my view, there is enough substance in the said contention of Mr. Roy Choudhury. It appears that the petitioner's service was terminated simply on the ground that the petitioner was not the natural son of the said Kartick Chandra Saha but in my view on that score, the service of the petitioner cannot be terminated when the Government has issued a circular giving concession to an ex-employee to nominate his son for absorption in the Company. The distinction between natural son and adopted son has no reasonable nexus with the object of the scheme namely a concession to an ex-employee to nominate his close relation or son for an employment in the Tramways Co. and such distinction offends Article 14 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, the impugned order of termination must be held to be illegal and is set aside, The petitioner shall be treated to be in service all the time and should be paid all his wages from the date of his termination of service. It may, however, be noted that as the respondents terminated the service of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner could not be absorbed as the son of the ex-employee, there was no occasion for the respondents to assess the service rendered by the petitioner during the probationery period. The respondents, however, will be at liberty to assess the service rendered by the petitioner and if necessary by taking into consideration the unexpired period of probation if any. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Order set aside.