JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J. - This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeks quashing of the impugned order Annexure P-3 dated 11.1.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for premature release. 2. The petitioner and his brother were convicted under Sections 302/307 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and 25 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Ambala on 4.12.1987. On 18.10.2000, the petitioner has undergone more than 20 years two months and 16 days. The break-up is as follows :- Y M D "Convicted period 12-10-14 (+) Undertrial period 01-10-26 14-19-10 (-) Parole period 00-06-21 14-02-19 (+) Remissions 05-11-27 Total Sentence 20-2-16." 3. Even according to the jail authorities, the petitioner has undergone a few months in excess of the maximum period prescribed. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected for the following reasons :- "..... This life convict alongwith his father and two brothers had committed the brutal triple murder of public spirited persons i.e. Ram Singh, Gurpal Singh and Gurbax Singh and having attempted a murderous assault on Sukhdev Singh by pistol and rifle from a close range and giving dagger blows in highly planned manner. This case falls under para 2(a) of the Govt. instructions dated 8.8.2000. As per this para life convict has to undergo 14 years actual sentence including undertrial period provided that the total period of such sentence including remissions is not less than 20 years. This life convict has fulfilled the above conditions but as this life convict had committed the murder of public representatives, the State Level Committee recommended that the premature release case of this life convict will be re-considered after one year." 4. The State of Haryana has been issuing policy instructions with regard to premature release of life convicts from time to time. Earlier, the case of the petitioner had been considered under policy instructions dated 4.2.1993. These instructions provided that the petitioner could have been released after he had completed 20 years of sentence. These instructions had, however, been superseded by instructions dated 8.8.2000 (Annexure P-2). According to these instructions, the petitioner is to undergo 14 years actual sentence including undertial period provided that the total period of sentence including remission is not less than 20 years. These instructions had, however, been superseded by instructions dated 8.8.2000 (Annexure P-2). According to these instructions, the petitioner is to undergo 14 years actual sentence including undertial period provided that the total period of sentence including remission is not less than 20 years. It has also been provided in the instructions that the period during which the convict remained on pareole will not be counted in the total sentence. The petitioner claims to be released on the basis of paragraph 2(a) of the instructions. 5. In the reply filed by the State of Haryana, it is also mentioned that the case of the petitioner had been considered under para 2(a). The relevant part of these instructions are as under :- "2. The Haryana Government has from time to time amended the policy regarding premature release of life convicts. There is a need to incorporate all the amendments made from time to time in the policy at one place. As such, in view of this, it has been decided that the premature release case of lie convicts will be considered hereafter as per policy laid down below. All earlier instructions issued in this regard, shall stand superseded. a) Convicts whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment and convicts who have been imprisoned for life having committed a heinous crime such as :- Their cases may be considered after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including under trial period provided that the total period of sentence including remissions is not less than 20 years. (i) Murder with wrongful confinement for extortion/robbery. (ii) Murder with rape. (iii) Murder while undergoing life sentence. (iv) Murder with decoity. (v) Murder with offence under TADA Act, 1997. (vi) Murder with Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (vii) Murder in connection with dowry. (viii) Murder of a child under the age of 14 years. (ix) Murder of a woman. (x) Murder after abduction or kidnapping. (xi) Murder on professional/hired basis. (xii) Murder exhibiting brutality such as cutting the body into pieces or burning/dragging the body as evident from judgment of the Court. (xiii) Persistent bad conduct in the person. (xiv) Convicts who cannot for some definite reasons be prematurely released without danger to public safety. (xv) Convicts who have been imprisoned for life under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. (xvi) Convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment a second time under any offence. (xiii) Persistent bad conduct in the person. (xiv) Convicts who cannot for some definite reasons be prematurely released without danger to public safety. (xv) Convicts who have been imprisoned for life under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. (xvi) Convicts who have been awarded life imprisonment a second time under any offence. (xvii) any other crime that the State Level Committee considers to be heinous for reasons to be recorded in writing... 3. xxxx xxxx xxxx 4. The Superintendent of the Jail concerned shall submit premature release cases of life convicts two months before they complete the sentence mentioned above alongwith their comments to the Director General of Prisons, Haryana keeping in view the following points :- i) Over all conduct of the life convict during his/her confinement in the jail with specific emphasis, however, on his conduct for the last two years from the date of his/her eligibility for consideration of premature release under para 2(a) to 2(e) may be termed as under :- a) If he/she has not been punished for any jail offence during the last five years, b) If he/she has been punished with a minor punishment during the last five years. c) If he/she has been punished with a major punishment during the last five years." 6. Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason which has been put forward by the Government for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and outside the purview of the instructions Annexure P-2. 7. Mr. Sarup, on the other hand, submits that it is for the State Level Committee to consider as to whether or not any particular individual is to be prematurely released, even if he falls under the instructions contained in Annexure P-2. Learned counsel has further submitted that a perusal of the order would show that the petitioner had committed a brutal triple murder of public spirited persons. Consequently the State Level Committee has recommended that the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of instructions, as yet, and his case will be reconsidered after one year. He has stressed upon the use of the word "may" occurring in paragraph 2(a) of the instructions. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid instructions give a discretion to the Government to reject the case of any convict, even if strictly speaking other conditions laid down in the instructions are satisfied. 8. He has stressed upon the use of the word "may" occurring in paragraph 2(a) of the instructions. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid instructions give a discretion to the Government to reject the case of any convict, even if strictly speaking other conditions laid down in the instructions are satisfied. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. By now it is well settled that even if a discretion is given to the Government, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily. All persons who are governed by a uniform policy, are entitled to be treated alike. Any differential treatment given to any particular individual, on the basis of the grounds which are not mentioned in the instructions, would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Article mandates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This Article applies with equal force to the rights of the prisoners as it does to any other individual not in prison. The respondents having formulated the policy are duty bound to apply the same without discrimination to all the prisoners who fall within the ambit of the policy. A perusal of the instructions reproduced above would clearly shows that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for release after completion of 14 years of actual sentence including undertrial period provided that the total period of sentence including the remission is not less than 20 years. It is not denied by the State that the petitioner has completed a total period of 20 years. The term "heinous" has been defined in paragraph 2(a) (i) to (xvii). The petitioner is sought to be denied the benefit of the instructions on the ground that the petitioner has murdered three public spirited persons. There is no such category of heinous crime contained in the definition of heinous crime given in Anneuxre P-2. However, the case of the petitioner would fall under residuary clause, category (xvii). Under this clause, for reasons to be recorded the State Level Committee can include any other crime in the category of heinous crime. Once the crime committed by the convict is included in this category, he/she has to serve a minimum of total 20 years in confinement. However, the case of the petitioner would fall under residuary clause, category (xvii). Under this clause, for reasons to be recorded the State Level Committee can include any other crime in the category of heinous crime. Once the crime committed by the convict is included in this category, he/she has to serve a minimum of total 20 years in confinement. Only then his case for premature release is to be considered by the State Level Committee. The very same criteria of reasons which place the crime is heinous category, cannot be subsequently used for denying premature release. The criteria as to how the case of a convict is to be considered is also given in paragraph 4 of the Premature release instructions. The case of the petitioner has to be considered on the basis of the criteria laid down therein. However, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected arbitrarily on the ground that he had committed triple murder of public spirited persons. It is, however, evident that on this very basis, the crime committed by the petitioner has already been placed in the category of heinous crime. Thus he has been denied the benefit of paragraph 2(f) of the instructions. Under this paragraph of the instructions a convict is eligible to be considered for premature release after completion of 10 years actual sentence, and a minimum of 14 years total sentence, including remissions. The respondents had to exercise the discretion by taking into consideration the factors which are enumerated in paragraph 4 of the instructions. Thus, the claim of the petitioner could have, inter alia, been rejected if his overall conduct had not been satisfactory with particular reference for the last two years of confinement. Mr. Navkiran Singh has placed on record the latest certificate issued by the Superintendent, Central Jaul, Ambala dated 19.3.2001. In this, it is stated that the petitioner has earned 76 months remissions and his conduct during his confinement remained good. Consequently, I am of the considered opinion that Annexure P-3 has been passed by the respondents arbitrarily and without taking into consideration the relevant criteria as laid down under the instructions Annexure P-2 dated 8.8.2000. 10. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-3 11.1.2001 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders for the release of the petitioner forthwith. No costs. Petition allowed.