2021 (10) TMI 1425 - SC - Indian Laws

Principles of parity and equality - Direction to 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. Whether the remaining 318 ex-employees of the Respondent No. 4 Mills (erstwhile) can claim the parity and equality vis- -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? HELD THAT - 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 134 employees was to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure. As observed 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. 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. The impugned judgement set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Legal right of the Workers Association to claim 200 Sq. Yards plots.
3. Applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution in the case.
4. Validity of considering affidavits to determine intelligible differentia.
5. Liability of KUDA and NTC towards the Workers Association.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The court considered whether the writ petition filed by the Workers Association under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable. The Workers Association sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 318 ex-employees, similar to the allotment made to 134 ex-employees. The court noted that the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution is a vested right and is enforceable against State instrumentalities. Therefore, the writ petition was maintainable.

2. Legal Right to Claim Plots:
The court examined whether the Workers Association had a legal right to demand the allotment of 200 Sq. Yards plots. It was established that both classes of ex-employees (318 and 134) were similarly situated, having worked for the same mill, taken voluntary retirement under the same scheme, and resided in quarters provided by the mill. The only difference was that 318 ex-employees vacated the quarters as per the notice, while 134 remained in unauthorized occupation. The court held that the right to equality under Article 14 is a legal right, and the Workers Association had a legitimate claim for equal treatment.

3. Applicability of Article 14:
The court evaluated whether Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, was applicable. It was found that both groups of ex-employees were similarly situated, and there was no rational basis for treating them differently. The allotment of plots to 134 ex-employees as a welfare measure necessitated similar treatment for the remaining 318 ex-employees to avoid discrimination. The court concluded that the unequal treatment violated Article 14.

4. Validity of Considering Affidavits:
The respondents argued that the decision to allot plots to 134 ex-employees was to avoid litigation costs, which was not mentioned in the original proposal or government order. The court held that the respondents could not improve their case by introducing new reasons through affidavits at a later stage. The original justification for allotting plots was based on welfare and rehabilitation, and the new argument was not considered valid.

5. Liability of KUDA and NTC:
The court addressed whether KUDA and NTC were liable to allot plots to the Workers Association. It was noted that KUDA had purchased the land from NTC and had agreed to allot plots to 134 ex-employees. The court directed KUDA to treat the remaining 318 ex-employees similarly and allot plots to them as well. The court also suggested that KUDA could approach the state government or NTC for additional land if necessary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Division Bench and restored the judgment of the Single Judge, directing KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards plots to the remaining 318 ex-employees within six months. The court emphasized the principle of equality and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Separate Judgments:
No separate judgments were delivered by the judges in this case. The judgment was a unified decision.