Full Judgment Text
// 1 //
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6260-61 OF 2021
Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002
of Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association …Appellant(s)
Versus
National Textile Corporation Limited & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final
judgment and order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the High
Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal
Nos.427 of 2016 and 431 of 2016 by which the Division Bench
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.10.26
16:59:51 IST
Reason:
of the High Court has allowed the said Appeals preferred by
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – National Textile
// 2 //
Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “NTC”) and the
Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal (hereinafter
referred to as “KUDA”) and has quashed and set aside the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.26642 of 2007, the original writ petitioner –
Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 of Azam Jahi
Mill Workers Association (hereinafter referred to as “Workers
Association”) has preferred the present Appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present Appeals in nut-shell are as
under:
2.1 That, all the members of the original writ petitioner – Workers
Association were working in Azam Jahi Mills owned and run by
the NTC. All the workers worked in the said Mill for more than
20 years. The said Mill was closed in the year 2002. That,
about 452 employees worked in the Mill for more than 20
years. It appears that during the period of service, all the
workers / employees working in the Mill were allotted
Employees’ Quarters constructed and owned by the Mill. That,
all the employees including the members of the Workers
Association and other employees of the Mill took voluntary
retirement pursuant to a Modified Voluntary Scheme of 2002.
// 3 //
At this stage it is to be noted that a large number of employees
voluntarily retired on one day i.e. 31.08.2002. That, all the
employees including the members of the Workers Association
were asked vide Notification dated 17.07.1986 to vacate the
quarters which were in the respective occupations of the
respective members / employees. In the said notice it was
stated that the quarters in which the employees were staying
were in dilapidated condition and became unfit for human
habitation. Approximately 318 employees including the
members of the Workers Association were forcefully evicted
from the quarters. Thereafter, the management of the Mill
demolished all the quarters vacated / evicted by 318
employees. However, some of the employees who were about
134 in number, continued to stay in their respective quarters
despite service of the notice dated 17.07.1986 asking them to
vacate the quarters. In the meantime, the Mill submitted an
application dated 30.05.2002 for closure of the Mill. On the
said application, proceedings were initiated by the Ministry of
Labour in which the management and representatives of the
Union participated. During the hearing, a request was also
made on behalf of the representatives of the Union to allot
quarters to the concerned workmen at reasonable rates. On
// 4 //
the aforesaid, it was submitted on behalf of the management
that the issue / request to allot the quarters is under
consideration by the management. Vide Notification dated
11.09.2002, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour
granted permission to close the Mill. That, thereafter, the NTC
sold away the machinery and infrastructure of the Mill and
allotted Acres 117.20 Gunthas out of 215 Acres to KUDA on
01.03.2007. A portion of the land owned by the Mill was sold to
Housing Board, KUDA and other institutions.
2.2
That, after allotment, 11 Acres of the land owned by the NTC /
Mill remained. It appears that thereafter KUDA submitted
proposal to the State to allot house sites of 200 Sq. Yards
each to 134 employees of the Mill, who continued to stay in
their respective quarters despite service of notice dated
17.07.1986 demanding them to vacate the quarters. The State
Government vide G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007, accepted
the proposal of the KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards developed
plot free of cost to each of 134 ex-employees of the erstwhile
Mill, as a rehabilitation and welfare measure. That, thereafter,
318 retired workers who also took voluntary retirement along
with other 134 workers made representation/s to allot to them
// 5 //
also 200 Sq. Yards plot as allotted to other 134 workers out of
the remaining land admeasuring Acres 10.24 Gunthas. The
Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal directed the Tehsildar,
Warangal to inquire about the land to an extent of Acres 10.24
Gunthas situated at Laxmipura and Khila, Warangal. VRO of
Laxmipura, Warangal submitted the report to the Tehsildar
submitting that the land to extent of Acres 5 situated at
Laxmipura village and the land to an extent of Acres 5.24
Gunthas situated at village Khila, Warangal total admeasuring
Acres 10.24 Gunthas is in vacant possession and therefore,
the said land is able to allocate house plots to members of
Workers Association, who have been 318 employees, have
not been allotted the house plots. Thereafter, nothing further
was done to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots each free
of cost to the remaining 318 ex-employees / workers of the Mill
who also took voluntary retirement along with other 134
workers who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots
each free of cost and therefore, the Workers Association filed
the Writ Petition before the High Court being Writ Petition
No.26642 of 2007. That, by a detailed and reasoned judgment
and order the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ
petition and directed the respondents to allot house sites of
// 6 //
200 Sq. Yards each to all the eligible 318 members of the
Workers Association by observing that they are at par with
other 134 ex-employees of the Mill, who were already allotted
house sits of an extent of 200 Sq. Yards each as per the G.O.
No.463 dated 26.07.2007.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, both, the NTC as well as
the KUDA filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench and by
the impugned common judgment and order the Division Bench
of the High Court has allowed the said Writ Appeals and has
quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
Hence, the present Appeals.
3. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate has
appeared on behalf of the appellant, Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior
Advocate has appeared on behalf of the KUDA and Ms.
Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG has appeared on behalf of the
NTC and the Union of India.
4. Ms. Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellant – Workers Association has vehemently
// 7 //
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Division Bench of the High Court has committed a grave error
in quashing and setting aside the well-reasoned judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge and consequently
dismissing the writ petition filed by the Workers Association.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Ramakrishnan, learned
Senior Advocate that the High Court has not properly
appreciated and considered the fact that KUDA as well as the
NTC are State instrumentalities under Article 12 of the
Constitution amenable to Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and therefore, all of them must conduct themselves as
behooves a welfare state. It is submitted that the learned
Single Judge of the High Court rightly observed and held that
not allotting 200 Sq. Yards plots to the remaining 318 workmen
would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. It is submitted that as rightly observed by
the learned Single Judge the remaining 318 workmen were at
par with other 134 workmen who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards
plot free of cost. It is submitted that as such there is no
differentia between 134 workmen who also took voluntary
retirement and the remaining 318 workmen who also took the
// 8 //
voluntary retirement along with other 134 workmen who were
allotted 200 Sq. Yards plots free of cost.
4.2 It is submitted that in fact 318 workmen were compelled and/or
forced to vacate the quarters pursuant to the notice dated
17.07.1986. It is submitted that however despite the notice
dated 17.07.1986, 134 workmen / employees did not vacate
the quarters. It is submitted that assuming that 318 remaining
workmen vacated the quarters out of their own volition
pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986, merely because
other 134 workmen, who did not vacate the quarters despite
the service of notice dated 17.07.1986, cannot be said to be at
a higher pedestal than the law abiding workmen who vacated
the quarters pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. It is
submitted that therefore as such the equals are treated
unequally and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly
directed the original respondents – respondents herein to allot
200 Sq. Yards plots to remaining 318 workmen also.
4.3 It is further submitted that if 318 workmen would not have
vacated the quarters, in that case, they would have also been
allotted 200 Sq. Yards plots at par with 134 workmen who
were allotted 200 Sq. Yards plots free of cost.
// 9 //
4.4 It is submitted that as rightly observed by the learned Single
Judge, there was no difference at all between 318 remaining
workmen and 134 workmen who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards
plots.
4.5 It is submitted that as such not allotting 200 Sq. Yards plots to
remaining 318 workmen would tantamount to punishing them
for complying with the eviction notice while rewarding 134
workmen for defying it which is manifestly unjust.
4.6
It is further submitted that as such the purpose of allotment of
the plots was for rehabilitation and welfare of the workmen. It
is submitted that in fact right from very beginning even when
the proceedings were before the Ministry of Labour, while
considering the request of the Mill for closure, there was
already a demand on behalf of the workers to allot them
quarters at concessional rates. It is submitted that thereafter
even the Deputy Chairman of the KUDA made a request to
allot 200 Sq. Yards plots to 134 workmen on the ground of
rehabilitation and welfare of the workmen. It is submitted that
for the first time before the High Court and that too in the
affidavit in reply, the KUDA came out with a case that to avoid
litigation with encroachers a decision was taken to allot 200
// 10 //
Sq. Yards plots to those 134 workmen who continued to be in
occupation and possession of the quarters. It is submitted that
when the proposal was made by the KUDA for allotment of
200 Sq. Yards plots to 134 workmen, that was not the ground
pleaded.
4.7 It is submitted that even otherwise to allot the plots free of cost
to avoid litigation with encroachers had no rationale nexus with
the purpose and such a difference is absolutely irrelevant
more particularly when as per the initial case of KUDA the
plots were allotted for welfare and rehabilitation.
4.8 It is submitted that other 318 workmen not only lost their
livelihood but also a place of abode and therefore, in fact they
were much more in need of welfare and rehabilitation
measures.
4.9 It is submitted that mandamus can be issued to the
respondents who are State instrumentalities to provide
developed plots of land to 318 ex-workmen on parity with 134
ex-workmen, to enforce their constitutional right against
discrimination and obligation of the State and its
instrumentalities to be fair and non-discriminatory in
// 11 //
distribution of State largesse. Reliance is placed on the
decisions of this Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram
Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3
SCC 489 (Paras 11 and 12) and in the case of D.S. Nakara
vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 (Paras 36 and 42).
4.10 It is submitted that even 134 workers were allotted the plots
without having any legal right and without having any legal
relationship or privity of contract with the KUDA and the State.
It is submitted that therefore the benefit which was granted to
other 134 workers cannot be denied to remaining 318
workmen on the ground that there is / was no legal relationship
or privity of contract with KUDA and the State Government. It
is submitted that as such the right to equality guaranteed
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a right available
to the remaining 318 workers which as such is enforceable.
Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the
present Appeals.
5. The present Appeals are vehemently opposed by Mr. V. Giri,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the KUDA.
5.1 It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the KUDA that as such
// 12 //
as rightly observed by the Division Bench, a writ of mandamus
could not have been issued directly to allot land to the Workers
Association / members of the Workers Association in view of
the fact that the land in question is a private land and not a
government land.
5.2 It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Giri, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the KUDA that KUDA is an
independent organization and KUDA purchased the land
belonging to the NTC / Mill on payment of full sale
consideration and as it was found that 134 employees
continued to occupy the quarters and therefore, it was not
possible for the KUDA to develop the land allotted / purchased
and therefore, to avoid any litigation it was decided to allot 200
Sq. Yards of plot free of cost out of 135.33 Acres of land
allotted to the KUDA. It is submitted that so far as the
remaining other 318 ex-employees are concerned, they had
already vacated the quarters and therefore, they were not in
possession of the quarters and therefore, their cases cannot
be compared with those who continued to be in occupation
and possession of the quarters. It is submitted that therefore
the remaining 318 ex-employees cannot be said to be at par
// 13 //
with those 134 workmen who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of
plots free of cost being in occupation and possession of the
quarters and without removing them and/or without settling the
dispute with them it was not possible for the KUDA to develop
the land acquired / allotted to the KUDA. It is submitted that
therefore the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly set
aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge and has rightly dismissed the writ petitions.
5.3 It is further submitted by Mr. Giri, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the KUDA that as such there was no privity of
contract and/or any relationship with/between the KUDA /
State and the ex-employees / workmen of the Mill. It is
submitted that therefore the KUDA was not obliged to allot the
plots to ex-workmen free of cost. It is submitted that therefore
as such there was no vested right in favour of the ex-
workmen / employees of the Mill to get 200 Sq. Yards plots
free of cost from KUDA.
5.4 It is submitted that as 134 ex-workmen / employees were
found to be in possession and occupation of the quarters and
therefore, it was found that without evicting them and/or
removing them and/or without resolving the dispute with them
// 14 //
it would not be possible for the KUDA to develop the land
acquired and therefore, it was under the said compulsion that
a conscious decision was taken to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots
free of cost to those 134 ex-employees who continued to be in
occupation and possession of the quarters. It is submitted that
therefore in absence of any vested right in favour of 318 ex-
employees, no writ of mandamus could have been issued by
the learned Single Judge and therefore, the Division Bench
has rightly interfered with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
5.5 It is further submitted by Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate
that if any relief the remaining 318 ex-employees are entitled
to, the same can be only from the NTC and the Mill and/or out
of the remaining land admeasuring 11 Acres owned by the
NTC. It is submitted that however there shall not be any
liability of the KUDA to allot any plot free of cost to the ex-
employees from the land allotted to / purchased by the KUDA.
5.6 Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 has vehemently submitted that as
such the writ petition preferred by the appellant – Workers
Association before the High Court itself was not maintainable.
// 15 //
It is submitted that in the writ petition it was prayed for
issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
allot the land to an extent of 200 Sq. Yards to each member of
the Workers Association. It is submitted that it is trite law that a
writ of mandamus is maintainable only if the person aggrieved
has a legal right and legal duty by the party against whom the
mandamus is sought. Reliance is placed on decisions of this
Court in the cases of Director of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs
M.R. Apparao & Anr, (2002) 4 SCC 638; Lalaram and
Others vs. Jaipur Development Authority and Another,
(2016) 11 SCC 31 and 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.
5.7 It is further submitted that the appellant Association has
claimed the right on the basis of G.O. No.463 dated
27.06.2007. It is submitted that under the said Government
Order the State of Andhra Pradesh granted approval to KUDA
th
to allot 200 Sq. Yards of land to 134 ex-employees of the 4
th
respondent. It is submitted that the land where the 4
respondent was situated was taken over by the Central
// 16 //
Government under the Sick Textile Undertakings
(Nationalization) Act, 1974. That, thereafter, the Estate Sale
Committee constituted by the Central Government sold
different extent of the land to the Andhra Pradesh Housing
Board, KUDA and others. It is submitted that KUDA is
incorporated under a statute with the object to develop
infrastructure in the area. It is submitted that it was found by
KUDA that there were 134 persons remaining in unauthorized
occupation of a part of the land purchased by them. It is
submitted that as such there was no contractual relationship
between KUDA and said 134 persons. There was no other
relationship between the two as provided for by any law. It is
submitted that at no point of time was any legal obligation
imposed on KUDA to allot any land to 134 persons. That, their
th
only right was that they were erstwhile employees of the 4
respondent Mills and that they had voluntarily retired from the
services of the Mills in the year 2002. It is submitted that the
appellant Workers Association also does not have any case
that there was any legal obligation attached to the land
purchased by KUDA from which any person either 134
persons who continued to remain in unauthorized occupation
of the land or 318 members of the Workers Association could
// 17 //
enforce any legal right against the said land. It is submitted
that no covenant or obligation ran with the land at any point of
time. It is submitted that in fact as per the Sick Textile
Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974, the vesting of the
land in the Central Government is free from any trust /
obligation / mortgage / charge / lien and all other
encumbrances affecting it. It is submitted that therefore the
two vital conditions requisite for a constitutional Court to issue
a writ of mandamus viz. a legal right with the person who
approaches the Court and a legal duty / obligation imposed on
the person against whom the relief is sought, are both absent
in the instant case.
5.8 It is further submitted that even the intelligible differentia can
be explained by way of an affidavit before this Court. It is
submitted that the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case
of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R.
Tendolkar & Others, 1959 SCR 279 rejected the contention
that affidavits cannot be looked into and differentia should be
forthcoming from the Notification only. It is submitted that the
G.O. No.463 shows that there was urgency for development. It
is submitted that KUDA would have had to undertake the
// 18 //
litigation process which was contrary to its commercial interest
and would defeat the purpose for which the land was bought
i.e. development for the city of Warangal and surrounding
areas. It is submitted that therefore the allotment in favour of
134 persons – erstwhile employees was moreover in the
nature of settlement, so that the work of development could be
undertaken at a quick pace.
5.9 It is further submitted that KUDA is an authority created under
the Telangana Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 to carry
out the development activities inter alia in Warangal District in
the State of Telangana. It is submitted that as such the
members of the Workers Association have no relation with the
nd
2 respondent, let alone that of employer – employee. It is
nd
submitted that therefore as there exists no obligation on the 2
respondent (KUDA) to allot plots of 200 Sq. Yards each to the
th
employees of the 4 respondent herein.
It is submitted that even being the statutory authority, the
nd
assets of the 2 respondent can be used only for the
fulfillment of the object laid down in that behalf by the statute in
question. It is submitted that allotment of sizable portion of
land to 318 erstwhile employees of the Mills is not a prescribed
// 19 //
objective. It is submitted that justification of G.O. No.463 in
question was only with the development of the land
nd
undertaken by the 2 respondent after its purchase was
seriously hampered by the continuous unauthorized
occupation by the erstwhile 134 ex-employees of the Mills. It is
submitted that the said G.O. No.463 obviously does not
involve the recognition of any legal right of the said 134
persons.
5.10 It is further submitted by Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate
that it is true that the allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of plot in the
year 2007 in favour of 134 persons took place only because
the said 134 persons refused to vacate the quarters and had
remained in unauthorized occupation. It is submitted that
however the allotment was not in recognition of any
unauthorized occupation and was not definitely in discharge of
any legal obligation on the part of KUDA. It is submitted that it
was simply on ground of expediting the process of
development of the land which was the reason why KUDA had
to get unencumbered and absolute unhampered possession of
the remaining extent of land at the earliest.
5.11 It is submitted that assuming that the allotment under the G.O.
// 20 //
No.463 was wrong and was a mistake, the same cannot be
offered a basis for legally enforceable claim at the instance of
the appellant Association. It is submitted that as held by this
Court in the case of the State of Odisha vs. Anup Kumar
Senapati, (2019) 19 SCC 626, two wrongs do not make a right
and there is no concept of negative equality contained in
Article 14 of the Constitution.
Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss
the present Appeals
6.
The present Appeals are also opposed by Ms. Aishwarya
Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the NTC as well as
the Union of India. It is submitted by Ms. Bhati that as such in
the process of implementation of Revival Scheme approved by
BIFR, the entire land admeasuring Acres 201.02 Cents
belonging to the Mill was put to sale by the Asset Sale
Committee constituted by the Government of India and on
23.01.2004, the sale was approved. It is submitted that
accordingly land admeasuring Acres 65.69 Cents was sold to
Andhra Pradesh Housing Board and Acres 135.33 Cents to
KUDA. It is submitted that thereafter the Committee was
dissolved vide BIFR Order dated 20.08.2014. It is submitted
// 21 //
that as per Section 3 of the Sick Textile Undertakings
(Nationalization) Act, 1974, the right, title and interest of Azam
Jahi Mills shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in
the Central Government. It is submitted that the NTC and the
Mills thereafter are only the custodian of the Azam Jahi Mills
and its properties on behalf of the Central Government who is
the absolute owner.
6.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhati that out of the total Acres
135.33 Cents sold to KUDA, only Acres 117.20 Cents was
available for registration as Acres 14.88 Cents was under
encroachment. It is submitted that as such as on date, around
5 Acres of land only is in the possession of the Mill as a
custodian on behalf of the Central Government who is the
absolute owner of the said properties. It is submitted that as
such as per the OM No.8(18)/2020-E-II(A) dated 28.03.2011 of
the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance
(Government of India), a specific approval of the Union
Cabinet is required by all the Ministries with regard to transfer
or alienation of land held by the Government or Government
controlled statutory authorities.
6.2 It is submitted that after the sale was concluded between the
// 22 //
NTC and KUDA, the Vice Chairman of KUDA requested the
Government of Andhra Pradesh for permission / sanction for
allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots to 134 ex-
workers of the Mills who had encroached the subject land and
were not vacating the said land. It is submitted that based on
the request of Vice Chairman, KUDA, Government permitted
KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards to each of the 134 erstwhile
workers of the Mills. It is submitted that as such 200 Sq. Yards
of the plots were neither allotted by the NTC / Mill / Central
Government nor they were party to the arrangement between
134 erstwhile employees of the KUDA. It is submitted that
therefore the appellant cannot seek allotment of land from the
NTC / Mills / Central Government.
6.3 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhati, learned ASG that in fact all
the ex-employees of the Mill accepted the voluntary retirement
under the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 and
they were paid all the benefits accrued under the Modified
Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 in the year 2002 itself. It
is submitted that therefore on and after the ex-employees of
the Mills took voluntary retirement and after the Mill came to
be closed after obtaining appropriate closure order from the
// 23 //
Ministry, thereafter there is no relationship continued between
the employees / ex-employees and the NTC / Central
Government / Mills. It is submitted that therefore the appellants
are not entitled to any relief against the Central Government /
NTC / Mills.
6.4 It is further submitted that the allotment of plots free of cost
was never the part of Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme
of 2002. It is submitted that all the erstwhile employees who
opted for voluntary retirement under the Modified Voluntary
Retirement Scheme of 2002 were completely aware of the
benefits that would be offered by way of golden handshake,
which did not include allotment of plots free of cost.
6.5 It is further submitted that as 200 Sq. Yards plots came to be
allotted to 134 ex-employees to avoid the cost of litigation,
there is no question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India as alleged. It is submitted that in any case the Central
Government / NTC / Mills had nothing to do with the decision
taken by the KUDA. It is submitted that therefore the Division
Bench of the High Court has rightly allowed the appeal
preferred by the NTC and has rightly quashed and set aside
the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
// 24 //
and has rightly consequentially dismissed the writ petition.
7. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at
length.
7.1 The appellant Workers Association for and on behalf of 318
ex-employees of the respondent No.4 – Mills approached the
High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and prayed to allot them 200 Sq. Yards of
plots free of cost at par with other 134 employees of the
erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills.
It was the specific case on behalf of 318 ex-employees of the
erstwhile respondent No.4 that they are similarly situated with
134 ex-employees of erstwhile respondent No.4 inasmuch as
both the classes (one class consisting of 318 employees and
another class consisting of 134 employees) are similarly
situated; the employees belonging to both the classes were
the employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills; that all
of them took the voluntary retirement under the Modified
Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 together; all were
similarly situated in granting the benefit of the modified
voluntary scheme; all were allotted the quarters and were
// 25 //
residing in the quarters. It was the case on behalf of the
employees that the only difference was that as law abiding
persons, they vacated the quarters after they were served with
the notice dated 17.07.1986 to vacate the quarters and that
those 134 ex-employees who as such were similarly situated
did not vacate the quarters despite the notice dated
17.07.1986 and they remained in unauthorized occupation. It
was also the case on behalf of 318 ex-employees that as per
the G.O. No.463, all those 134 ex-employees were allotted
200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to avoid undue hardship to
the ex-employees and as a welfare measure. The learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the
respondents to treat all those 318 ex-employees at par with
134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots
free of cost and to allot them accordingly by observing that not
allotting similar 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to remaining
employees – 318 ex-employees is discriminatory and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of the
High Court quashed and set aside the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present
Appeals.
// 26 //
8. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective
parties, the short question which is posed for consideration of
this Court is, whether the remaining 318 ex-employees of the
respondent No.4 Mills (erstwhile) can claim the parity and
equality vis-a-vis other similarly situated 134 ex-employees of
the respondent No.4 Mills (erstwhile) and can claim 200 Sq.
Yards of plots free of cost? The incidental questions which are
posed for consideration of this Court as argued and suggested
by the learned Counsel for the respective parties would be as
follows:
(1) Whether the writ petition preferred by the appellant
Association before the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the relief sought was maintainable?
(2) Whether was there any legal right available to the
appellant Association for the relief sought in the writ petition
i.e. for allotment of 200 Sq. Yards plots of land?
(3) Does Article 14 of the Constitution have any application
in the present case?
(4) Whether to determine the intelligible differentia the
affidavit filed on behalf of the concerned respondents can be
// 27 //
looked into and/or relied upon?
(5) Whether any relief can be claimed against KUDA and/or
against the NTC / respondent No.4 Mills?
9. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective
parties at length on the aforesaid issues.
At the outset it is required to be noted that 318 ex-
employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills prayed for
equality and claimed the reliefs at par with other similarly
situated 134 ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4
Mills who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost.
9.1 It is to be noted and it cannot be disputed that even at one
point of time as admitted by the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of KUDA that 318 ex-employees who were not allotted
200 Sq. Yards of plots are as such similarly situated to those
134 ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills who
were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plot free of cost pursuant to the
approval vide G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007. All of them as
such were working with the respondent No.4. All of them were
ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. All of
them were residing in the quarters allotted by the Mills. All of
// 28 //
them took voluntary retirement under the Modified Voluntary
Scheme in the year 2002. All of them got the benefits under
the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 and all of
them were relieved on and from 31.08.2002. However, 318 ex-
employees vacated their quarters from time to time pursuant to
the notice dated 17.07.1986. Thus, they abided the notice
dated 17.07.1986. However, despite the notice dated
17.07.1986 and even after they were relieved on and from
31.08.2002, 134 ex-employees continued to retain the
quarters and they were in unauthorized occupation of the
quarters. Therefore, the only difference between 134 ex-
employees and 318 ex-employees was that 318 ex-employees
were law abiding persons who vacated the quarters pursuant
to the notice dated 17.07.1986 and 134 ex-employees
remained in unauthorized occupation of the quarters.
At this stage it is required to be noted that 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
// 29 //
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
// 30 //
situated to those 134 ex-employees, also to allot to them 200
Sq. Yards of house plots, their request came to be turned
down. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the
observations made hereinabove, 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
observed hereinabove, as both the classes of employees are
found to be similarly situated except the difference as
// 31 //
observed hereinabove, 318 ex-employees who as such were
similarly situated with those 134 ex-employees when claimed
the equality and parity, as such the learned 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.
9.2 The submission on behalf of the respondents more particularly
learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 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. We find 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. We find that
as such the equals are treated unequally and therefore, when
the equals are treated unequally, there is a violation of Article
// 32 //
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.
9.3 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 present case allotment of 200 Sq.Yards free of cost to
// 33 //
134 employees was to avoid undue hardship to the ex-
employees and as a welfare measure. As observed
hereinabove 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.
9.4 Now, 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 the reliance placed on the
decision in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia (Supra) that
to determine the intelligible differentia an affidavit produced
before this Court can be considered and/or referred to is
concerned, the aforesaid seems to be attractive but has no
substance in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is to
// 34 //
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. As observed hereinabove and 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”. Even in
paragraph 4 of the G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007, the State
Government has specifically observed that after careful
consideration of the matter, “as a rehabilitation and 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 learned
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
// 35 //
which is now pleaded for the first time before this Court. The
case on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been dealt
with by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 5 which reads
as under:
rd
“5. The averments in the counter affidavit of the 3
respondent to the extent relevant, in brief, are as follows:
The President of the petitioner association in his
personal capacity along with four others had filed a court
case before the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal
and it is posted to 03.03.2008 for hearing. Hence, the writ
petition is not maintainable. The members of the petitioner
association had voluntarily retired from the services of the
mill under modified VRS 2002. Their accounts were settled
by the NTC long time back. Hence, the request for allotment
of house sites to the members of the petitioner association
on par with (134) other employees does not arise for
rd
consideration. In fact, the 3 respondent KUDA had taken
over possession of (134) quarters covered in an area of
Ac.117.00 guntas of land. The allotment of plots to the (134)
workers, who were staying in the quarters, was considered
as a measure of rehabilitation and welfare by the
Government as well as KUDA. There is no illegality or
irregularity in the matter. KUDA had submitted proposals to
the Government for allotment of plots to (134) workers only,
as they were still continuing to stay in the quarters at the
time of taking over physical possession of the land by KUDA
from NTC. The Government had issued orders for allotment
of plots to those (134) employees who were by then staying
in the quarters. This respondent cannot allot plots to the
members of the petitioner association as per the
Government Orders referred to in the writ petition. This
respondent received representation dated 15.09.2007.
However, it is not considered as the case of the members of
the petitioner association does not stand on the same
footing as that of the (134) former employees, who had
continued to stay in the existing quarters, and as the
allotment of sites was made to them as per the Government
orders. The members of the petitioner association who had
voluntarily retired under a modified voluntary scheme had
vacated the quarters and had left the place already. At the
time of taking over possession by the KUDA, (134) ex-
workers only were staying in the quarters. The proposal for
allotment of house plots of 200 square yards each was
agreed upon by the respondents 2 and 3. Such similar
benefit cannot be extended to the retired employees other
// 36 //
than (134) ex-workers as per the principle of the decision
taken in this regard by this respondent and the Government.
This respondent has purchased the land from the NTC and
had specifically agreed for allotment of house sites to those
ex-employees only who were still staying in the quarters by
that time. This respondent and the Government did not
agree for allotment of sites to the members of the petitioner
association. This respondent had taken up sites and
services scheme and had incurred a lot of expenditure on
infrastructure facilities like provision of roads, water supply,
drainage, electricity, parks development etc. and disposing
the plots in public open auction. In view of the financial
position of the third respondent, it is not possible to allot
plots to any other retired employees, under any
circumstances. The members of the petitioner association
vacated the quarters long time back and are residing
elsewhere and they were not staying in the mill quarters at
the time of the proposal of the scheme for purchase of land
st
by this respondent from the 1 respondent and therefore, the
members of the petitioner association are not eligible for
allotment of any house sites on par with the other (134)
workers. The project was taken up on “as is where is” and
“as is what is” basis. The members of the petitioner
association have no right to demand plots and this
respondent has no liability to allot plots to the members of
the petitioner association as per the project deal. The
members of the petitioner association cannot re-enter the
picture and seek allotment of house sites. As per the
Government Order, the Project has to be finalized to raise
funds for City infrastructure development and therefore, this
respondent was obliged to raise funds through the sale
proceeds by selling plots. Even if any of the land is
available, it is for the development of KUDA and city and not
reserved for allotment to the petitioners on free of cost on
par with (134) members. There is no scope for sparing the
land of this respondent to the members of the petitioner
association. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.”
9.5 From the above and even from the grounds of appeal before
the Division Bench, respondents tried to justify their action by
submitting that case of 318 ex-employees is not comparable
with those of 134 ex-employees as 318 ex-employees vacated
the quarters and they were not in possession and that only
// 37 //
134 ex-employees remained in possession of the quarters. For
the first time before this Court, in the counter affidavit, it is now
the case on behalf of the respondent KUDA and others that to
avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost, it was proposed to
allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. 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. Therefore, the
respondents more particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot
be permitted to improve their case by filing the affidavit before
this Court for the first time. Therefore, the decision of this
Court in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia (Supra), which
has been relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.2 and 3, shall not be applicable to the facts of
the case on hand. Even otherwise on going through the entire
decision of this Court in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia
(Supra), we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not
be of any assistance to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. It was the
case with respect to the classification and the Union
// 38 //
Government tried to justify the basis of classification by way of
affidavit and it was the case on behalf of the writ petitioners
that the basis of classification must appear on the face of the
notification itself and reference cannot be made to any
extraneous matter and to that it is observed and held that
there can be no objection to the matters brought to the notice
of the Court by way of affidavit being taken into consideration
alongwith the matters specified in the notification in order to
ascertain whether there was any valid basis for treating the
appellants and/or their companies as a class by themselves.
We fail to appreciate as to how the said decision shall be
applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
9.6 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case
of Anup Kumar Senapati (Supra) that there is no concept of
negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and the
submission 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, again the same has no substance. At
the outset it is required to be noted that it was/is never the
// 39 //
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. Therefore, the aforesaid decision shall not
be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
9.7 Now, 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 ex-employees to
// 40 //
avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare
measure and as a rehabilitation to only 134 case ex-
employees and not other ex-employees similarly situated,
would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. As observed hereinabove, 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 ex-employees 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 ex-employees 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
// 41 //
were allotted to other 134 ex-employees who otherwise were
similarly situated. It will be open for the respondent Nos.2 and
3 to approach the respondent No.1 and/or the State
Government for allotment of additional land and/or to allot the
plots from the remaining land of the respondent No.4 Mills
which might be vacant and available with the Central
Government / NTC as the case may be.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both
these Appeals succeed. Impugned judgment and order dated
19.02.2020 passed by the High Court for the State of
Telangana, at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal Nos.427 of 2016 and
431 of 2016 are hereby quashed and set aside and the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.26642 of 2007 is hereby 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 – Azam Jahi Mills
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 will
be open for KUDA to approach the State Government and/or
// 42 //
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. The
aforesaid exercise of allotment of plots to remaining 318 ex-
employees – members of the appellant – Workers Association
shall be completed within a period of six months from today.
Both the present Appeals are allowed accordingly. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.
OCTOBER 26, 2021. [A.S. BOPANNA]