Judgment : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling the records pertaining to the order of the third respondent, made in O.A.No. 1106 of 2010 by its common order dated 09-09-2011 insofar as the petitioner is concerned and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 & 2 to appoint the petitioner on regular basis on compassionate ground at par with her juniors. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant on Relaxation of normal Recruitment Rules (RRR) on compassionate grounds on the demise of her husband and allotted to the 1st respondent Circle vide memo dated 23-04-1996, of the Chief Postmaster General, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore. The Case of the petitioner is that she has put in 14 years of service as Postal Assistant and is still continuing to work in the same capacity at Madipakkam Sub-Post Office, Chennai – 600 091 without any break, and hence, prays for regularization of her service. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 202 similarly placed persons, who were in service as on 27-10-2009 were granted regularization by the Department on its own, where the case filed by the Department was pending before the Honourable Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that similar issue was already considered by this Court in W.P. No. 24535 of 2013, filed by the Union of India, represented by the Chief Post-Master General and this Court was pleased to direct the Postal Department to consider the case of such candidates on par with similarly placed persons and regularize their services, by an order dated 30-09-2013, and the only difference in their case is, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application and the workman filed the writ petition and in the said case, the Central Administrative Tribunal, allowed the original application and the Department filed the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order reads thus: “6. Some of the similarly placed persons, who were denied regularization, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and all the original applications were allowed. The said orders were confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. SLPs were filed and after grant of leave, civil appeals were pending. The relevant portion of the order reads thus: “6. Some of the similarly placed persons, who were denied regularization, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and all the original applications were allowed. The said orders were confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. SLPs were filed and after grant of leave, civil appeals were pending. During hearing of batch of Civil Appeal No. 7773/2009 etc., the Department filed an additional affidavit agreeing to regularize 202 respondents in the Civil Appeals as one time measure, on the basis of the observation made by the Supreme Court while hearing the appeals, with a condition that they shall not be entitled for payment of any arrears on account of regularization, but their pay and pensionary benefits will be protected. The said decision was taken by the petitioners despite the communication dated 25.7.2001, which is put against the first respondent and other similarly placed person. 7. On perusal of the said order in Civil Appeals dated 30.7.2010, it is evident that the department voluntarily filed an additional affidavit and came forward to regularize 202 respondents, who were working in the department against short term/leave vacancies, with effect from their date of appointment. All of them were appointed on compassionate ground. As the respondents in Civil Appeals were given relief to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court thought fit to observe that the findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court with regard to the interpretation of the office memorandum and circulars are set aside and that finding and observation shall not be treated as precedent for the purpose of any other cases that may be pending, and question of law, if any may be left open. Thus, it is clear that the Honourable Supreme Court has not ordered that no other person, though similarly placed are not entitled to get similar relief. After the regularization was granted to 202 candidates, who were similarly placed, though most of them were appointed on compassionate ground after the first respondent, and the said orders having been issued on 30.8.2010, the first respondent who was not a party in the earlier OA/Writ Petition/Civil Appeal, filed original application on 24.10.2010 without any further delay i.e. within three months from the date of the order granting regularization. 8. 8. The cause of action for filing the original application to the first respondent arose only after the regularization granted to similarly placed persons and to most of his juniors only on the basis that they were in service as on 27.10.2009. Thus, the Tribunal entertained the original application and passed an order to grant relief to the first respondent as he was similarly placed. The said order of the Tribunal is in accordance with the principle of treating equally placed persons in equal position, as guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Neither in the reply affidavit nor in the affidavit filed – in support of this writ petition petitioners have shown any distinguishing factor to that of 202 candidates, who were granted regularization on their volition, during pendency of the civil appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The issue as to whether equally placed persons should be treated alike without any discrimination even in service matter is no longer res integra. The following decisions can be cited to the said proposition. (a) In Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India, (1191) 2 SCC 48, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8 held thus, “8. As regards the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 the position is well settled that the said right ensures equality amongst equals and its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. It means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Conversely discrimination may result if persons dissimilarly situate are treated equally. Even amongst persons similarly situate differential treatment would be permissible between one class and the other. In that event it is necessary that the differential treatment should be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.” (b) In the decision reported in State of Karnataka Vs. N. Parameshwarappa, 2013 (12) SCC 192, in paragraph 6, it is held thus: “8. ……. N. Parameshwarappa, 2013 (12) SCC 192, in paragraph 6, it is held thus: “8. ……. We do not find any reasonable justification to confine the relief to only such of the teachers who approached the court and having regard to the fact that relief related to the revision of scales of pay, every one of that class of teachers who approached would be entitled to the benefit, notwithstanding that they have not approached the court. We are in equal agreement with the Division Bench in denying the payment of interest at compounded rates which, in our view, cannot be justified at all on the facts and circumstances of the case wherein a serious and genuine doubt existed about the applicability of the government order dated 30-3-1990, as raised in the proceedings.” (c) In Govind Ram Purohit Vs. Jagjiwan Chandra 1999 SCC (L&S) 788, in para 3, it has been held thus: “3. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that whereas the petition has been filed by only Respondent 1, the High Court while finally concluding the matter has given a direction to promote all those who were senior to the appellants even though they were not parties to the petition. Once the High Court had placed a particular interpretation on the Rules, the benefit of that interpretation had to go to all those who qualified under the seniority-cum-merit rule. There was no point in waiting for each and every person to file a petition. Therefore, we do not see any reason why we should entertain such a technical plea when the High Court has done substantial justice to all concerned.” (Emphasis supplied) The above referred Supreme Court decisions were followed by one of us (NPVJ) in 2006 (2) MLJ 572 (N.S. Balasubramanian V. Food Corporation of India) for extending the benefits even after voluntary retirement. The said order was challenged in W.A.No. 956/2006 and the same was dismissed on 30.10.2006 and S.L.P.(C).NO. 677/2007 filed against the Division Bench order, was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23.04.2007. (d) In the decision reported in 2011 (5) SCC 553 (Rathy Shyam v. State of Uttarpradesh) the Supreme Court held that the policy of pick and choose in acquiring some parcels of land while leaving many other parcels of lands under Land Acquisition Act is discriminatory and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (d) In the decision reported in 2011 (5) SCC 553 (Rathy Shyam v. State of Uttarpradesh) the Supreme Court held that the policy of pick and choose in acquiring some parcels of land while leaving many other parcels of lands under Land Acquisition Act is discriminatory and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (e) In the decision reported in 2010 (2) CTC 336 (SC) (Hari Ram v. State of Haryana) the Supreme Court held that if the courts are not correcting the wrong action of the Government it may leave citizen with the belief that citizen is right in contacting right persons in the Government as if judicial proceedings are not efficacious. (f) The principle stated in the above cited decision in Hari Ram’s case was reiterated in the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2013 (10) Scale 67 (Sham Lal v. State of Punjab) (para 21 & 22) (g) In the decision reported in 2013 (8) Scale 74 : (2013) 7 SCC 595 (State of U.P. v. Dayanand Chakrawarty) relying the decision reported in (1991) 2 SCC 48 (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be any discrimination in treating equally placed persons on same footing, for all purposes. (h) The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2011 (5) CTC 503 (Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Uma Maheswari Ramaswamy) held that there must not be discrimination in land acquisition proceedings. Special Leave to Appeal CC Nos. 60636066 of 2012 filed against the said judgment were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.4.2012. 10. In view of the above pronouncements, we hold that similarly placed persons are bound to be treated equally without discrimination, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order passed by invoking the power exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot be exercised by this Court. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order passed by invoking the power exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot be exercised by this Court. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 (B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India) approved the Full Bench judgment of the Orissa High Court reported in AIR 1992 Orissa 261 (Krishna Chandra Pallai v. Union of India) and held that the High Court being a Court of plenary jurisdiction, has inherent power to do complete justice between parties similar to Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In the decision reported in (1993) 4 SCC 269 (Union of India and Others v. R. Reddappa and Another) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the Court is satisfied of injustice or arbitrariness, then the restrictions, self-imposed or statutory, stands removed and no rule of technicality or exercise of power can stand in way of rendering justice. Giving equal treatment to similarly placed persons without discrimination is the fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution and the law Courts are bound to protect the said right. 12. Applying the said judgments to the facts of this case, and having regard to the undisputed fact that the first respondent was appointed in 1995 on compassionate ground due to the demise of his father, who was a postman and he is continuing in service as on date for over 18 years, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the application filed by the first respondent. 13. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine. It is made clear that the first respondent is to be regularized on the same terms and conditions on which the 202 similarly placed persons were granted regularization by order dated 30.8.2010, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.” 14. Following the above order, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the first respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6, on the same terms and conditions, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The connected M.P.No.1 of 2013 is also closed.