Constitution of India:
Art. 14 – Right to equality – 318 ex-employees of the erstwhile Mill seeking parity with a group of 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 sq. yards of plots free of cost – Workers/employees of the Mill were allotted employees’ quarter constructed and owned by the Mill – Said employees including the members of the workers association took voluntary retirement – Thereafter, issuance of notice to vacate the quarters – 318 employees including the members of the association forcefully evicted, however, 138 employees continued to stay in their respective quarters – Subsequently, closure of the Mill and major portion of the land allotted to Kakatiya Urban Development Authority-KUDA – Submission of proposal by KUDA to State Government to allot 200 sq. yards developed plot free of cost to each of 134 ex-employee of the Mill as a rehabilitation and welfare measure, which was accepted by the State Government – Thereafter, representation by 318 retired workers seeking allotment of 200 sq. yard plot as allotted to other 134 workers – Writ petition by the Workers Association – Allowed by the Single Judge, however, dismissed by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: Remaining 318 ex-employees of the erstwhile Mills can claim the parity and equality vis-a-vis other similarly situated 134 ex-employees of the Mills and can claim 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost – As a law abiding person, 318 employees vacated the quarters and as such they cannot be put to disadvantageous situation – To allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-employees to avoid undue hardship to the exemployees and as a rehabilitation and welfare measure, and not to other ex-employees similarly situated, would be discriminatory and violative of Art.14 – There is no rationale justification in providing differential treatment to one class of ex-employees similarly placed with another class of ex-employees who are allotted the plots – Thus, the order passed by the Division Bench is quashed and set aside and that of the Single Judge is restored.
Art. 14 – Concept of equality – Valid classification – Held: Art. 14 may permit valid classification – Classification must necessarily satisfy two tests-distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective, and the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 At the time when the proceedings for closure of respondent No.4 Mill was held before the Ministry of Labour, a request was made to allot the quarters to the concerned workmen at reasonable rates and in the order granting approval for closure, it was submitted on behalf of the Mills that the request to allot the quarters is under consideration by the management. That, after the closure permission, proceedings were initiated by KUDA to acquire the land of respondent No.4 Mills to an extent of 135.33 Acres. However, it appears that the Vice Chairman of KUDA vide letter / communication dated 28.12.2006 submitted their proposal to permit KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees of erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. In the letter it was specifically mentioned that to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure a proposal was made by the Vice Chairman of KUDA to permit KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost to
134 employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Vide G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007, the State Government accepted the said proposal and granted the permission to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost to each of 134 employees of erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Nothing further was mentioned either in the communication / letter dated 28.12.2006 nor in the G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007 that to avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost as now stated in the affidavit in reply it was proposed to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-employees. However, thereafter when a request was made on behalf of the remaining
318 ex-employees, who as such were similarly situated to those
134 ex-employees, also to allot to them 200 Sq. Yards of house plots, their request came to be turned down. [Para 9.1]
1.2 From the said facts and circumstances and the observations made, it is found that 318 ex- employees were not allotted the 200 Sq. Yards of plots and 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost who as such were similarly situated and as such there is no difference between them at all. On the contrary, 318 ex-employees can be said to be law abiding ex- employees who vacated the quarters after 1986 but before 2002 pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. It is not in dispute that 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost were in unauthorized occupation of the quarters and they did not vacate the quarters despite the notice dated 17.07.1986 and even after 31.08.2002 when they accepted the voluntary retirement and relieved. Therefore, to allot the plots to those employees who were found to be in unauthorized occupation would tantamount to giving a premium to their illegality and remaining in occupation and possession of the quarters illegally and unauthorizedly. As both the classes of employees are found to be similarly situated except the difference,
318 ex-employees who as such were similarly situated with those
134 ex-employees when claimed the equality and parity, as such the Single Judge rightly issued the writ of mandamus and directed the respondents to treat all of them at par and allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots to remaining 318 ex-employees also as per the G.O. No.463. [Para 9.1][342-B-F]
1.3 The submission that the appellant Association – 318 ex-employees have no legal right and that respondent Nos.2 and
3 have no legal duty has no substance and cannot be accepted. Right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is vested right in favour of the person who claims equality and parity and the same is enforceable against State / State instrumentalities in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no justification at all in treating
318 ex-employees different from those 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. The equals are treated unequally and therefore, when the equals are treated unequally, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the appellants were entitled to the relief sought even in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Para 9.2][342-F-H]
1.4 The concept of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws emerges from the fundamental right expressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Equality is a definite concept. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. Equality is amongst equals. Classification is therefore to be founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the groups and such differential attributes must bear in just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. In a given case Article 14 of the Constitution may permit a valid classification. However, a classification to be followed must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. In the instant case, allotment of
200 Sq. Yards free of cost to 134 employees was to avoid undue hardship to the ex- employees and as a welfare measure. Those
318 ex-employees who are denied the benefit of allotment of 200 Sq.Yards of plots free of cost are similarly placed persons with that of 134 employees who are allotted 200 Sq. Yards plots free of cost. There is no rationale justification in providing differential treatment to one class of ex-employees similarly placed with another class of ex-employees who are allotted the plots. [Para 9.3][343-B-E]
1.5 So far as the case on behalf of KUDA now before this Court in the form of counter affidavit that to avoid any litigation and litigation cost and to get vacant possession of the remaining land, it was proposed and decided to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees who were found to be in occupation and possession of the quarters and therefore, there was a valid reason to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-employees and that to determine the intelligible differentia an affidavit produced before this Court can be considered and/or referred to is concerned, the said seems to be attractive but has no substance in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is to be noted that in the proposal made by the Vice Chairman, KUDA to the State Government in the year 2007 to permit them to allot
200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex- employees, there was no reference at all that to avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost it was proposed to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. Even when the G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007 is seen, it is found in the letter dated 28.12.2006 that “to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure”. Government has agreed to the proposal of the Vice Chairman, KUDA and permit them to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost to each
134 ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Therefore, the allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to
134 ex-employees was as a rehabilitation and welfare measure of ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Even before the Single Judge also, it was not the case pleaded before the High Court that those 134 persons were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost which is now pleaded for the first time before this Court, in the counter affidavit. The respondents therefore cannot be permitted to improve their case which was not even their case earlier viz. at the time when they made a proposal to permit them to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees and even it was not the case so stated in the G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007 and even it was not the case before the High Court. [Para 9.4-9.5][343-F-H; 344-A-D; 346-F-G]
1.6 So far as the submission on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and that merely because there was any mistake on the part of the respondents in allotting 200 Sq. Yards of land to the said 138 persons and therefore, the appellants cannot claim the parity is concerned, has no substance. It was/is never the case on behalf of the respondents that those 134 persons were allotted the plots by mistake and/or there was any wrong committed in allotting 200 Sq. Yards of plot to the said 134 persons. Therefore, there is no question of applicability of any negative equality. [Para 9.6][347-D-E]
1.7 So far as the submission on behalf of the respondents that they do not have any sufficient land at present to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to remaining 318 ex-employees and that all those 318 ex-employees vacated the quarters voluntarily and they settled in their houses is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that merely because for whatever reason and even as a law abiding person they vacated the quarters, they cannot be put to disadvantageous situation being a law abiding persons. Even it cannot be presumed that all those 318 ex-employees who vacated the quarters and stayed elsewhere were settled. It cannot be presumed like that without any factual data. There may be many ex-employees who were compelled to vacate the quarters and who might not have settled or might be staying in a one room house. In any case, to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 exemployees to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure and as a rehabilitation and not other exemployees similarly situated, would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. On the contrary, to allot the plots to 134 employees on the ground that they were in unauthorized occupation and therefore, to avoid the litigation /litigation cost would be giving a premium to those who continued to be in illegal unauthorized occupation and to punish those exemployees who were found to be law abiding and vacated the quarters pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. Even the justification to differentiate the case between two classes of exemployees is not germane. If remaining 318 ex-employees would not have vacated the quarters and would have remained in unauthorized occupation, even as per the case on behalf of the respondents is accepted, then those who remained in unauthorized occupation subsequently might have been allotted to 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost like 134 ex-employees who were found to be in unauthorized occupation. Therefore, as such there is no justification at all to deny allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to each of 318 ex-employees, which were allotted to other
134 ex-employees who otherwise were similarly situated. [Para 9.7][347-F-H; 348-A-D]
1.8 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court are quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge is restored and the respondents more particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to treat and consider the remaining 318 ex- employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 at par with other 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost as per the Government Order No.463 dated 27.06.2007. However, it is observed that it would be open for KUDA to approach the State Government and/or the respondent Nos.1 and 4 / the Central Government to allot additional plot/land, may be out of the remaining land available with the Central Government/National Textile Corporation Limited of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills and the same may be considered in larger public interest. [Para 10][348-F-H; 349-A]
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & Others [1959] SCR 279; State of Odisha vs. Anup Kumar Senapati (2019) 19 SCC 626 – distinguished. Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 : [1979] 3 SCR 1014; D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC
305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165; Director of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr (2002) 4 SCC 638 : [2002] 2 SCR 661; Lalaram and Others vs. Jaipur Development Authority and Another (2016) 11 SCC 31 : [2015] 14 SCR 403; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others vs. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa
(Deceased) Through his Legal Heir Mohd. Muqueen Qureshi and Anr. (2019) 5 SCC 119 : [2019] 3 SCR 1036 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.