Equal treatment in public employment: differential non absorption violates equality and warrants directed absorption to protect livelihood.

Refusal to provide alternative employment to certain employees of a company wound up, while similarly situated employees were absorbed, constitutes unequal treatment in public employment engaging Article 14 and impairs livelihood protections under Article 21; where no adequate justification for differential treatment exists, equitable relief in the form of directed absorption is appropriate. The operative effect ordered is that the State must provide employment to the affected applicants in any State department or public undertaking within three months to remedy the discriminatory omission and protect livelihood interests.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal of the State to provide alternative employment to applicants, who were employees of a company ordered to be wound up while similarly situated employees were absorbed, amounted to discrimination violative of Article 14 and deprivation of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and whether the Court should direct the State to provide employment to the applicants.

Analysis: Applicants were employees of a company subject to winding up; following termination under Section 445(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 some employees were absorbed into State/public undertakings while the applicants were repeatedly not absorbed despite their names being forwarded. The non-provision of employment to the applicants, contrasted with accommodation of similarly situated employees, constitutes unequal treatment in public employment engaging Article 14. The lack of alternative employment to the applicants also impairs their livelihood and touches upon protections under Article 21. On the facts, equitable relief in the form of direction to the State to provide employment is warranted to remedy the discriminatory omission.

Conclusion: The application is allowed; the State is directed to provide employment to the applicants in any department of the State Government or in a public undertaking within three months from receipt of the order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where similarly situated employees are absorbed following winding up but particular employees are denied absorption without adequate justification, such discriminatory denial violates Article 14 and may be remedied by a court-directed absorption to protect livelihood interests under Article 21.

---