Judgment :- 1. The petitioner had approached the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai by filing two applications in O.A.Nos.1907 and 2704 of 2000, one challenging the show cause notice dated 16.2.2000 and another challenging the termination order issued by the first respondent 20.3.2000. The said Original Applications were transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.Nos.41706 and 46825 of 2006. 2. The petitioner is a cured leprosy patient and on applying for appointment to the post of Male Nursing Assistant on compassionate grounds, the respondent by order dated 28.7.1997 appointed the petitioner to the post of Male Nursing Assistant and thereafter he was also posted at the Primary Health Centre, Vaduganthangal with a scale of pay of Rs.750-12-870-14-940. From the date of his appointment, the petitioner has been sincerely discharging his duties without giving any room for complaints. While so, the first respondent has issued an order dated 20.8.1997 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, without notice, by simply stating that the appointment order issued is hereby cancelled. Immediately, the petitioner challenging the cancellation order filed O.A.No.5113 of 1998 and the said O.A came to be allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 15.9.1998 by setting aside the order of termination issued without notice by the respondent. However, the Tribunal has given liberty to proceed against the petitioner by following the due process of law, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.296 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 17.6.1997. Thereafter, though the said order was not implemented, the petitioner filed contempt application in C.A.No.200/99. Subsequent to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner by way of contempt application for not obeying the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.5113 of 1998, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 20.1.2000. Thereafter, on 16.2.2000, a show cause notice was issued by the first respondent seeking to terminate the service of the petitioner on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 17.6.1997. Though the petitioner immediately submitted his explanation, he has once again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1907 of 2000 challenging the said show cause notice and the Tribunal also granted interim stay against the operation of show cause notice on 20.3.2000. But, on the same day immediately after coming to know of the interim order, the first respondent again terminated the service of the petitioner. But, on the same day immediately after coming to know of the interim order, the first respondent again terminated the service of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.46825 of 2006. Therefore, these two writ petitions are taken up together. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of G.O. Ms.No. 140 dated 21.4.69 and G.O.Ms.No.1499 dated 14.9.89 similarly placed cured leprosy patients viz., B.Krishnan, D.Kamaraj, P.Vioiet Devakirubai were appointed on 10.7.1997 and 3.7.1997 respectively, by the officers under the control of the first respondent department. Since the appointment of similarly placed cured leprosy patients were made after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 17.6.1997, after appointing the petitioner on 28.7.1997 again sought to cancel his appointment on the basis of G.O. Ms.No.296 dated 17.6.1997, the learned counsel contended that this is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in his further submission the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the court a reported judgment of this court in O.SAMUEL AMSTRONG VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (2007(2) CTC 443) wherein this court by a well reasoned order taking note of the plight of a cured leprosy patient has given a direction to consider the case of the said cured leprosy patient for appointment on humanitarian ground. On that basis, he prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting aside both the show cause notice as well as termination order. 4. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that so long as G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 17.6.1997 has not been challenged by the petitioner, the first respondent is duty bound to act on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.296 wherein the Government has decided to do away with the scheme of appointment of cured leprosy patients to the post of Junior Assistant and other posts in both the Government Leprosy Institutions and other offices under the control of Health and Family Welfare Department without reference to Employment Exchange with a further direction that any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously and render the officers concerned open to disciplinary action. In that view of the matter, the learned Additional Government Pleader sought to sustain the impugned show cause notice and the order of termination. 5. In that view of the matter, the learned Additional Government Pleader sought to sustain the impugned show cause notice and the order of termination. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on record. 6. The case of the petitioner is based on the flagrant discrimination shown by the respondents by appointing similarly placed cured leprosy patients like B.Krishnan, D.Kamaraj and P.Violet Devakirubai under the cured leprosy patients appointment scheme on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.140 dated 21.4.1969 and G.O.Ms.No.1499 dated 14.9.1989 on various dates viz., 10.7.1997 and 3.7.1997 respectively. When the officers working under the control of the respondents have appointed similarly placed cured leprosy patients on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.140 dated 21.4.1969 and G.O.Ms.No.1499 dated 14.9.1989 that too, after coming into force of G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 17.6.1997, this court does not find any justification to single out the petitioner alone for being terminated from the services, while leaving the other similarly placed cured leprosy patients in their respective offices. 7. This court also in a similar situation in the case of O.Samuel Armstrong Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu(2007 (2) CTC 443) by considering the very same G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 17.6.1997, while dealing with a case wherein a cured leprosy patient sought appointment on compassionate ground, has given a direction to the same respondent to consider the case of the said cured leprosy patient for his appointment on humanitarian ground for the reason that the right to work, though, not a fundamental right is a means to development and source to earn livelihood for a workman, lower class, middle class and poor people. Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. In the present case also, admittedly, the petitioner has got cured of the disease. Therefore, it is not easy for him to get a job anywhere as a normal person, if he is thrown out from the present employment. In this view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that the ratio laid down by this court in the above decision is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. On that basis, this court has no other option except to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned show cause notice and the termination order. On that basis, this court has no other option except to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned show cause notice and the termination order. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice and the termination order passed by the first respondent are set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.