JUDGMENT 1. This order will govern the disposal of WP Nos.6284/19, 6283/19, 6279/19, 6296/19 & 6314/19 since it is jointly submitted by counsel for the parties that all these writ petitions involve the same issue on the identical fact situation. 2. For convenience the facts are taken from WP No.6284/2019. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to absorb them in the Government service and give the same treatment as has been given to the petitioners in WP No.18682/2013 vide order dated 24.2.2015 in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P . The petitioners by way of amendment have also challenged the order dated 30.11.2019, whereby their case for absorption has been rejected on the ground that the project at Indore is run by a private institute Bal Niketan Sangh. 4. The case of the petitioners is that the central government had issued the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) executed through Human Resources Development Ministry, with the object of providing certain services to pre-school children and pregnant and lactating women. It was a scheme to improve the status of health and nutritional condition of children and women, particularly those living in the rural areas. In terms of Para-47 of the Scheme the funds were to be provided by the Central Government and staff was to be borne on the appropriate cadre of the State. Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore was authorized to implement the scheme at Indore. Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore was a non government organization receiving 100% aid. Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 vide order dated 1.11.1988 had prepared the framework relating to posts and set up of the ICDS project and sent it to Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore and the Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore vide communication dated 1.4.1989 was given the responsibility to implement the project at Indore and Jobat, District Jhabua. Thereafter by publishing the notice, applications were invited and after scrutiny the petitioners were appointed on the post of Supervisor etc. in the year 1989 and given the pay scale applicable to that post. The petitioners are working continuously since then and work of census was taken and election duties was also assigned to them. Thereafter by publishing the notice, applications were invited and after scrutiny the petitioners were appointed on the post of Supervisor etc. in the year 1989 and given the pay scale applicable to that post. The petitioners are working continuously since then and work of census was taken and election duties was also assigned to them. Further case of the petitioners is that the similarly situated ICDS appointees by Janpad Panchayat in Tendukheda project had approached the High Court by filing the writ petitions which were allowed by order dated 24.2.2015 and in terms of the said order they have been absorbed in Government service, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for the same treatment. 5. The respondents have filed their reply taking the stand that the petitioners are not entitled to absorption in Government service because they were appointed by the Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore and that the respondents had entered into the agreement dated 1.4.2009 with the Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore providing the staffing pattern and any appointment made in excess thereof is the responsibility of the Sangh, therefore, the petitioners case stands on a different footing and they cannot claim parity with the appointees of Tendukheda project because those were the appointments made by the Janpad Panchayat. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to absorption in terms of Para 47 of the Scheme and also in terms of the judgment of the Supreme court in the matter of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kaberi Khastagir and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 68 and of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Jain (supra). 7. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are appointees of NGO, therefore, they are not entitled for any relief. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that though the petitioners were appointed in the ICDS Scheme by the Bal Niketan Sangh, at Indore but undisputedly Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore was receiving 100% aid from the Government. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that though the petitioners were appointed in the ICDS Scheme by the Bal Niketan Sangh, at Indore but undisputedly Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore was receiving 100% aid from the Government. The appointment of the petitioners was under the ICDS Scheme and Para-47 of the Scheme provides that:- "Even though funds will be provided by the Central Government, the Staff will be borne on the appropriate cadres of the States and therefore, the State should sanction the posts (as per Appendix) in the appropriate corresponding State pay scale. The Anganwadi workers and their helpers will be honorary workers." 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Kaberi Khastagir and others (supra) considering the same issue and taking note of Para-47 of the Scheme has held that:- '31. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we find ourselves unable to agree with the reasoning either of the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court in holding that the writ petitioners were Project employees in respect of the ICDS Project and not employees of the State Government and that their services were coterminus with the Project. Paragraph 35 of the Scheme clearly provides that though the same was a Centrallysponsored scheme, its implementation was left to the respective State Governments with 100% financial assistance from the Central Government for inputs other than supplementary nutrition which was identified as the responsibility of the State Government. In fact, paragraph 47 of the Scheme, which has been extracted hereinabove, in no uncertain terms makes it very clear that even though funds for the Scheme would be provided by the Central Government, the staff would be borne on the appropriate cadres of the States which would sanction the posts in the appropriate corresponding State pay scale. In the face of such provision it is difficult to accept that the writ petitioners were Project workers and not employees of the State Government." 10. In the aforesaid judgment the Honble Supreme Court has rejected the contention of the State that such appointees are project workers and not the employees of the State Government. 11. The same issue came up before this Court in a batch of writ petitions being WP No.18682/2013(s) in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs. In the aforesaid judgment the Honble Supreme Court has rejected the contention of the State that such appointees are project workers and not the employees of the State Government. 11. The same issue came up before this Court in a batch of writ petitions being WP No.18682/2013(s) in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. and others , wherein this Court by order dated 24.2.2015 taking note of the Para-47 of the Scheme and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kaberi Khastagir and others (supra) has held that:- '17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Most of the questions which are factual in nature are not disputed. It is a fact in the Integrated Child Development Scheme, para 47 therein contemplates that the funds for implementing the scheme shall be provided by the Central Government but the staff for manning the scheme shall be borne on the appropriate cadre of the State and the State should sanction the post as per the appendix in a appropriate corresponding State pay scale. This provision of the scheme was subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in the case of Kaberi Khastagir (supra) and the Supreme Court has clearly laid down in the aforesaid judgment that the provisions of para 47 of the ICDS Scheme leaves little room for doubt that employees who are appointed to the scheme and who are respondents No.1, 2 and 3 before the Supreme Court were State Government employees. In fact, in the case of Kaberi Khastagir (supra), the employees who are respondents therein were appointed under the scheme by the State Government and when they were being treated as project employees, not entitled for any other benefit. The Supreme Court referring to para 47 of the Scheme held that the respondents therein and other similarly situated persons were State Government employees because as per the scheme itself, the employees were to be appointed and borne in the State 14 Government cadre. The Supreme Court referring to para 47 of the Scheme held that the respondents therein and other similarly situated persons were State Government employees because as per the scheme itself, the employees were to be appointed and borne in the State 14 Government cadre. Even though in this case there is a slight difference in as much as the petitioners herein were not directly appointed by the State Government as per the Scheme but implementation of the project in the case of the petitioners and in the District Damoh pertaining to Tendukheda was undertaken by the State Government by authorizing the Janpad Panchayat, Tendukheda to implement the scheme. Except for this factual difference, the scheme in question is identical in nature. 18. It may be taken note of that according to the petitioners and even as per the material available on record, in the State of Madhya Pradesh while implementing the scheme different methods were followed in different parts of the State, particularly in the matter of employing persons for manning the project. In some areas and Districts, the scheme was directly implemented by the State Government by appointing staff and personnels to man the scheme but in certain place like Tendukheda, Damoh and Sahawal in the District of Sidhi, the power was delegated to Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat to implement the scheme. As far as the present petitioners are concerned who were appointed in Tendukheda, District Damoh, the State Government instead of complying with the requirement of para 47 of the scheme, issued an order Annexure P/2 on 2nd June, 1995 and authorized the Janpad Panchayat, Tendukheda to implement the scheme on behalf of the State Government. While doing so, the required posts for manning the scheme which include posts like Child Development Officer, Assistant Project Officer, Peon, Drivers etc. were sanctioned. In all 20 posts were sanctioned as is evident from the communication Annexure P/1 and after sanctioning the aforesaid 20 posts, the Janpad Panchayat was directed to make the recruitment and appoint the personnels subject to the condition stipulated in para 5 of Annexure P/1 to say that the employees appointed will not be treated as State Government employees. In all 20 posts were sanctioned as is evident from the communication Annexure P/1 and after sanctioning the aforesaid 20 posts, the Janpad Panchayat was directed to make the recruitment and appoint the personnels subject to the condition stipulated in para 5 of Annexure P/1 to say that the employees appointed will not be treated as State Government employees. This action of the State Government in authorizing the Janpad 15 Panchayat, Tendukheda to implement the scheme in the District of Tendukheda and thereafter directing them to make appointment to 20 posts by stipulating a condition that the employees appointed shall not be the employees of the State Government runs contrary to the mandate of para 47 of the scheme. If the scheme was to be implemented, it should have been implemented in its letter and spirit and in accordance to the provisions of para 47 of the scheme which mandates that even though fund will be provided by the Central Government, the Staff will be borne on the appropriate cadre of the State and the State should sanction the post in the appropriate corresponding State pay scale. If that be the requirement of the scheme and if the scheme was implemented by the State Government in various other districts strictly by following the said scheme then if a different method was followed for implementing the scheme in the area of Tendukheda, this is nothing but an arbitrary and unreasonable act on the part of the State Government. That being so, I am of the considered view that the State Government in this case deviated from the requirement of the scheme and after having authorized the Janpad Panchayat, Tendukheda, to implement the scheme and after having sanctioned the posts and funds to the Janpad Panchayat, took an arbitrary and unreasonable decision in the matter of saying that the employees so appointed would not be the employees of the State Government. In doing so, not only the mandate of para 47 of the scheme has been violated but a discriminatory attitude was shown by the State Government in as much as while implementing the project in various other districts of the State, the employees have been directly recruited by the State Government and now they are working in the Women and Child Development Department and are getting all benefits as regular State Government employees rather they are employees borne in the regular State cadre service. If that be the position with regard to the employees appointed to the scheme in majority of districts, it 16 is not known as to why only with regard to some employees like 20 employees of Janpad Panchayat, Tendukheda a different procedure was followed. This act of the State Government is discriminatory in nature and this Court cannot approve the same being in violation to Article 14 of the Constitution. 19. When the same scheme is being implemented throughout the State a uniform policy has to be maintained in as much as the scheme should have been implemented in an identical manner. In the present case, this has not been done. In most of the Districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh the scheme has been implemented strictly in accordance to the mandate of para 47 of the scheme in as much as the State Government has employed personnel to mann the scheme by posting them in the State cadre and providing them the same pay scale as is granted to the employees of the State Government, whereas in certain places like Tendukheda in District Damoh and Sihawal in District Sidhi, the power of implementing the scheme was granted to the Janpad Panchayat. The posts were sanctioned by the State Government, funds were also provided by the State Government after receipt from Central Government and under the guidelines and supervision of the State Government. The entire project was implemented, finally the project was taken over by the State Government and entrusted to the Women and Child Development Department and the project still continues. The posts were sanctioned by the State Government, funds were also provided by the State Government after receipt from Central Government and under the guidelines and supervision of the State Government. The entire project was implemented, finally the project was taken over by the State Government and entrusted to the Women and Child Development Department and the project still continues. Employees who were recruited directly by the State Government continued to work in the project now under the Women and Child Development Department but in the case of persons like the present petitioners, on the garb of their being a project employees, a different treatment is mented upon, even though the scheme still functions in Tendukheda. This action of the State Government is highly discriminative. There cannot be two sets of procedure and conditions for implementing a particular project. The project should have been implemented uniformly throughout the State of 17 Madhya Pradesh and all employees employed for manning the project should have been given similar treatment. This having not been done, the action of the State in discriminating between the set of employees who are discharging similar functions for a particular project, cannot be justified. The Act is in violation to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 20. That apart, some of the facts that have come on record in the present case goes to show that the petitioners were appointed by following a due process of law in as much as a regular advertisement was issued for filling up the sanctioned posts as notified by the State Government vide Annexure P/1 on 2 nd June, 1995. The appointment was undertaken after conducting the process of selection by a duly constituted selection committee. The appointment was on probation for a period of two years and after the period of probation was over all the petitioners were regularized in service. Thereafter, looking to the nature of duties performed by them as is evident from Annexure P/23, P/24, P/25 and P/26, the Janpad Panchayat, the Zila Panchayat and the District Level Departmental Advisory Committee have all recommended that the service of the petitioners be absorbed in the State Government service. Thereafter, looking to the nature of duties performed by them as is evident from Annexure P/23, P/24, P/25 and P/26, the Janpad Panchayat, the Zila Panchayat and the District Level Departmental Advisory Committee have all recommended that the service of the petitioners be absorbed in the State Government service. Further, the scheme itself was transferred to the Women and Child Development Department of the State Government on 4.8.2010 and it is reported that now the project is being implemented by the State Government through the Women and Child Development Department. If that be so, there is no reason as to why petitioners who are also appointed for the scheme, and when the project is transferred and taken over by the Department which is implementing the project, why service of the employees are not being transferred along with the project. 21. *********************** 22. *********************** 23. *********************** 24. Thereafter, in para 9.3 it is again indicated that whenever the projects are implemented by nodal agency or independent authorities the appointments are made on contract basis and as the appointment of petitioners are on contract basis, it is said that they cannot be treated as Government employees. This contention of the State Government cannot be accepted. Once the mandate of para 47 of the scheme contemplates appointment of staff to be in the State Cadre by the State Government on payment of pay scale as applicable to the State Government employee, then it is clear that the intention of the Central Government in implementing the scheme was to get it enforced through employees to be recruited by the State Government. The State Government implemented the scheme as warranted under para 47 in most of the Districts but with regard to these petitioners a different procedure was followed which was not in infirmity with the requirement of para 47. That apart, the action of the State Government in doing so has been discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs and this Court has recorded a finding that the same is discriminatory in nature and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. That being so, the grounds indicated in para 9.3 of the impugned order for rejecting the claim cannot be sustained." 12. In the aforesaid judgment this Court has already held that the State was required to implement the scheme by maintaining uniform policy in identical manner. That being so, the grounds indicated in para 9.3 of the impugned order for rejecting the claim cannot be sustained." 12. In the aforesaid judgment this Court has already held that the State was required to implement the scheme by maintaining uniform policy in identical manner. It has also been held that in terms of Para-47 the similarly situated employees appointed in the Scheme have already been held by the Honble Supreme Court as State Government employees because as per the Scheme the employees were to be appointed and borne in the State Government cadre. The different manner of appointment of employees in the ICDS Scheme through the Janpad Panchayat in Tendukheda area has been held to be discriminatory because in other areas the appointment was made by the State Government. Same is the position in the present case also, because in the present case instead of directly making the appointment under the ICDS Scheme, the State Government had made the appointment through the Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore and had provided 100% grant to it. Therefore, the case of the petitioners stands on the same footing as that of Sanjeev Kumar Jain (supra). The petitioners have also been appointed by open advertisement and by following the due process. Reliance on the agreement dated 1.4.2009 by the State is also of no consequence as the petitioners were appointed much prior to that. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners by the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 on the sole ground that the petitioners were appointed by a non government institute namely Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore, though the other facts and circumstances in the present case are identical to the case of Sanjeev Kumar Jain (supra). Such a different treatment has already been held to be arbitrary in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Jain (supra). In view of this the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Identical orders in the connected mattes, if 1 any, are also set aside and the respondents are directed to take an appropriate decision for absorbing the petitioners in Government service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed off . 15. Identical orders in the connected mattes, if 1 any, are also set aside and the respondents are directed to take an appropriate decision for absorbing the petitioners in Government service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed off . 15. Signed order be kept in the file of WP No.6284/19 and a copy thereof be placed in the file of connected WP Nos.6283/19, 6279/19, 6296/19 & 6314/19.