MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOCIATIONNATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. on 26 October 2021

MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OFAZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOCIATION

v.

NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 6260-61 of 2021)

OCTOBER 26, 2021

[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Constitution of India:

Art. 14 – Right to equality – 318 ex-employees of the erstwhileMill seeking parity with a group of 134 ex-employees who wereallotted 200 sq. yards of plots free of cost – Workers/employees ofthe Mill were allotted employees’ quarter constructed and ownedby the Mill – Said employees including the members of the workersassociation took voluntary retirement – Thereafter, issuance of noticeto vacate the quarters – 318 employees including the members ofthe association forcefully evicted, however, 138 employees continuedto stay in their respective quarters – Subsequently, closure of theMill and major portion of the land allotted to Kakatiya UrbanDevelopment Authority-KUDA – Submission of proposal by KUDAto State Government to allot 200 sq. yards developed plot free ofcost to each of 134 ex-employee of the Mill as a rehabilitation andwelfare measure, which was accepted by the State Government –Thereafter, representation by 318 retired workers seeking allotmentof 200 sq. yard plot as allotted to other 134 workers – Writ petitionby the Workers Association – Allowed by the Single Judge, however,dismissed by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: Remaining 318ex-employees of the erstwhile Mills can claim the parity and equalityvis-a-vis other similarly situated 134 ex-employees of the Mills andcan claim 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost – As a law abidingperson, 318 employees vacated the quarters and as such they cannotbe put to disadvantageous situation – To allot 200 Sq. Yards ofplots to 134 ex-employees to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a rehabilitation and welfare measure, and not toother ex-employees similarly situated, would be discriminatory andviolative of Art.14 – There is no rationale justification in providingdifferential treatment to one class of ex-employees similarly placed

321

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Awith another class of ex-employees who are allotted the plots – Thus,the order passed by the Division Bench is quashed and set asideand that of the Single Judge is restored.

Art. 14 – Concept of equality – Valid classification – Held:Art. 14 may permit valid classification – Classification mustBnecessarily satisfy two tests-distinguishing rationale has to be basedon a just objective, and the choice of differentiating one set ofpersons from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objectssought to be achieved.

Allowing the appeals, the CourtC

Conclusion

HELD: 1.1 At the time when the proceedings for closureof respondent No.4 Mill was held before the Ministry of Labour,a request was made to allot the quarters to the concernedworkmen at reasonable rates and in the order granting approvalfor closure, it was submitted on behalf of the Mills that the requestDto allot the quarters is under consideration by the management.That, after the closure permission, proceedings were initiatedby KUDA to acquire the land of respondent No.4 Mills to anextent of 135.33 Acres. However, it appears that the ViceChairman of KUDA vide letter / communication dated 28.12.2006submitted their proposal to permit KUDA to allot 200 Sq. YardsEof plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees of erstwhile respondentNo.4 Mills. In the letter it was specifically mentioned that to avoidundue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure aproposal was made by the Vice Chairman of KUDA to permitKUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost toF134 employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Vide G.O.No.463 dated 27.06.2007, the State Government accepted thesaid proposal and granted the permission to allot 200 Sq. Yardsof developed plots free of cost to each of 134 employees oferstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Nothing further was mentionedeither in the communication / letter dated 28.12.2006 nor in theGG.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007 that to avoid any litigation and/orlitigation cost as now stated in the affidavit in reply it was proposedto allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-employees. However,thereafter when a request was made on behalf of the remaining318 ex-employees, who as such were similarly situated to those H

134 ex-employees, also to allot to them 200 Sq. Yards of houseplots, their request came to be turned down. [Para 9.1]

1.2 From the said facts and circumstances and theobservations made, it is found that 318 ex- employees were notallotted the 200 Sq. Yards of plots and 134 ex-employees whowere allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost who as such weresimilarly situated and as such there is no difference between themat all. On the contrary, 318 ex-employees can be said to be lawabiding ex- employees who vacated the quarters after 1986 butbefore 2002 pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. It is not indispute that 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yardsof plots free of cost were in unauthorized occupation of thequarters and they did not vacate the quarters despite the noticedated 17.07.1986 and even after 31.08.2002 when they acceptedthe voluntary retirement and relieved. Therefore, to allot theplots to those employees who were found to be in unauthorizedoccupation would tantamount to giving a premium to theirillegality and remaining in occupation and possession of thequarters illegally and unauthorizedly. As both the classes ofemployees are found to be similarly situated except the difference,318 ex-employees who as such were similarly situated with those134 ex-employees when claimed the equality and parity, as suchthe Single Judge rightly issued the writ of mandamus and directedthe respondents to treat all of them at par and allotted 200 Sq.Yards of plots to remaining 318 ex-employees also as per theG.O. No.463. [Para 9.1][342-B-F]

1.3 The submission that the appellant Association – 318ex-employees have no legal right and that respondent Nos.2 and3 have no legal duty has no substance and cannot be accepted.Right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitutionof India is vested right in favour of the person who claims equalityand parity and the same is enforceable against State / Stateinstrumentalities in exercise of powers under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. There is no justification at all in treating318 ex-employees different from those 134 ex-employees whowere allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. The equals aretreated unequally and therefore, when the equals are treated AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aunequally, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitutionand therefore, the appellants were entitled to the relief soughteven in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India. [Para 9.2][342-F-H]

1.4 The concept of equality before the law and equalBprotection of the laws emerges from the fundamental rightexpressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Equality is a definiteconcept. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arisingfrom the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those whoare similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment.Equality is amongst equals. Classification is therefore to beCfounded on substantial differences which distinguish personsgrouped together from those left out of the groups and suchdifferential attributes must bear in just and rational relation tothe object sought to be achieved. In a given case Article 14 ofthe Constitution may permit a valid classification. However, a Dclassification to be followed must necessarily satisfy two tests.Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a justobjective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set ofpersons from another must have a reasonable nexus to theobjects sought to be achieved. In the instant case, allotment of200 Sq. Yards free of cost to 134 employees was to avoid undueEhardship to the ex- employees and as a welfare measure. Those318 ex-employees who are denied the benefit of allotment of 200Sq.Yards of plots free of cost are similarly placed persons withthat of 134 employees who are allotted 200 Sq. Yards plots free ofcost. There is no rationale justification in providing differential Ftreatment to one class of ex-employees similarly placed withanother 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 thisCourt in the form of counter affidavit that to avoid any litigationGand litigation cost and to get vacant possession of the remainingland, it was proposed and decided to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plotsfree of cost to 134 ex-employees who were found to be inoccupation and possession of the quarters and therefore, therewas a valid reason to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex- H

v. NTC LTD.

employees and that to determine the intelligible differentia anaffidavit produced before this Court can be considered and/orreferred to is concerned, the said seems to be attractive but hasno substance in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is tobe noted that in the proposal made by the Vice Chairman, KUDAto the State Government in the year 2007 to permit them to allot200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex- employees, therewas no reference at all that to avoid any litigation and/or litigationcost 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 foundin the letter dated 28.12.2006 that “to avoid undue hardship tothe ex-employees and as a welfare measure”. Government hasagreed to the proposal of the Vice Chairman, KUDA and permitthem to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost to each134 ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills.Therefore, the allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to134 ex-employees was as a rehabilitation and welfare measure ofex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Evenbefore the Single Judge also, it was not the case pleaded beforethe High Court that those 134 persons were allotted 200 Sq.Yards of plots free of cost to avoid any litigation and/or litigationcost which is now pleaded for the first time before this Court, inthe counter affidavit. The respondents therefore cannot bepermitted to improve their case which was not even their caseearlier viz. at the time when they made a proposal to permit themto allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employeesand even it was not the case so stated in the G.O. No.463 dated27.06.2007 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 respondentNos.2 and 3 that there is no concept of negative equality underArticle 14 of the Constitution and that merely because there wasany mistake on the part of the respondents in allotting 200 Sq.Yards of land to the said 138 persons and therefore, the appellantscannot claim the parity is concerned, has no substance. It was/isnever the case on behalf of the respondents that those 134persons were allotted the plots by mistake and/or there was anywrong committed in allotting 200 Sq. Yards of plot to the said 134

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Apersons. Therefore, there is no question of applicability of anynegative equality. [Para 9.6][347-D-E]

1.7 So far as the submission on behalf of the respondentsthat they do not have any sufficient land at present to allot 200Sq. Yards of plots to remaining 318 ex-employees and that allBthose 318 ex-employees vacated the quarters voluntarily and theysettled in their houses is concerned, at the outset it is requiredto be noted that merely because for whatever reason and evenas a law abiding person they vacated the quarters, they cannot beput to disadvantageous situation being a law abiding persons.Even it cannot be presumed that all those 318 ex-employees whoCvacated the quarters and stayed elsewhere were settled. It cannotbe presumed like that without any factual data. There may bemany ex-employees who were compelled to vacate the quartersand who might not have settled or might be staying in a one roomhouse. In any case, to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-Demployees to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and asa welfare measure and as a rehabilitation and not other ex-employees similarly situated, would be discriminatory andviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution. On the contrary, toallot the plots to 134 employees on the ground that they were inunauthorized occupation and therefore, to avoid the litigation /Elitigation cost would be giving a premium to those who continuedto be in illegal unauthorized occupation and to punish those ex-employees who were found to be law abiding and vacated thequarters pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. Even thejustification to differentiate the case between two classes of ex-Femployees is not germane. If remaining 318 ex-employees wouldnot have vacated the quarters and would have remained inunauthorized occupation, even as per the case on behalf of therespondents is accepted, then those who remained in unauthorizedoccupation subsequently might have been allotted to 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost like 134 ex-employees who were found to beGin unauthorized occupation. Therefore, as such there is nojustification at all to deny allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of plots freeof cost to each of 318 ex-employees, which were allotted to other134 ex-employees who otherwise were similarly situated.[Para 9.7][347-F-H; 348-A-D]H

A

1.8 The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt are quashed and set aside and the judgment and orderpassed by the Single Judge is restored and the respondents moreparticularly respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to treatand consider the remaining 318 ex- employees of the erstwhilerespondent No.4 at par with other 134 ex-employees who wereallotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost as per the GovernmentOrder No.463 dated 27.06.2007. However, it is observed that itwould be open for KUDA to approach the State Government and/or the respondent Nos.1 and 4 / the Central Government to allotadditional plot/land, may be out of the remaining land availablewith the Central Government/National Textile CorporationLimited of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills and the samemay be considered in larger public interest. [Para 10][348-F-H;349-A]

B

C

Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar& Others [1959] SCR 279; State of Odisha vs. AnupKumar Senapati (2019) 19 SCC 626 – distinguished.

D

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International AirportAuthority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 : [1979] 3 SCR1014; D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC305 : [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. JaipurDevelopment Authority and Another (2016) 11 SCC 31: [2015] 14 SCR 403; Municipal Corporation of GreaterMumbai and Others vs. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa(Deceased) Through his Legal Heir Mohd. MuqueenQureshi and Anr. (2019) 5 SCC 119 : [2019] 3 SCR1036 – referred to.

E

F

Case Law Reference

A[1959] SCR 279distinguishedPara 9.5(2019) 19 SCC 626distinguishedPara 9.6

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6260-6261 of 2021.

BFrom the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2020 of the High Courtfor the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal Nos.427 and431 of 2016.

Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Shadan Farasat, ChikudduPrabhakar, Vinoothna Vinjam, Bharat Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.

C

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Ms. MayuriRaghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms. Purvat Wali, P. Venkat Reddy,Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy For M/s Venkat Palwai LawAssociates, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byDM. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned finaljudgment and order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the High Court for theState of Telangana, at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal Nos.427 of 2016 and431 of 2016 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowedEthe said Appeals preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein – NationalTextile Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “NTC”) and theKakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal (hereinafter referredto as “KUDA”) and has quashed and set aside the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.26642 of 2007,Fthe original writ petitioner – Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of2002 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 asunder:G

2.1 That, all the members of the original writ petitioner – WorkersAssociation were working in Azam Jahi Mills owned and run by theNTC. 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 employeesworked in the Mill for more than 20 years. It appears that during theHperiod 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 Associationand other employees of the Mill took voluntary retirement pursuant to aModified Voluntary Scheme of 2002. At this stage it is to be noted that alarge number of employees voluntarily retired on one day i.e. 31.08.2002.That, all the employees including the members of the Workers Associationwere asked vide Notification dated 17.07.1986 to vacate the quarterswhich were in the respective occupations of the respective members /employees. In the said notice it was stated that the quarters in which theemployees were staying were in dilapidated condition and became unfitfor human habitation. Approximately 318 employees including themembers of the Workers Association were forcefully evicted from thequarters. Thereafter, the management of the Mill demolished all thequarters vacated / evicted by 318 employees. However, some of theemployees who were about 134 in number, continued to stay in theirrespective quarters despite service of the notice dated 17.07.1986 askingthem to vacate the quarters. In the meantime, the Mill submitted anapplication dated 30.05.2002 for closure of the Mill. On the saidapplication, proceedings were initiated by the Ministry of Labour in whichthe management and representatives of the Union participated. Duringthe hearing, a request was also made on behalf of the representatives ofthe Union to allot quarters to the concerned workmen at reasonablerates. On the aforesaid, it was submitted on behalf of the managementthat the issue / request to allot the quarters is under consideration by themanagement. Vide Notification dated 11.09.2002, the Government ofIndia, Ministry of Labour granted permission to close the Mill. That,thereafter, the NTC sold away the machinery and infrastructure of theMill and allotted Acres 117.20 Gunthas out of 215 Acres to KUDA on01.03.2007. A portion of the land owned by the Mill was sold to HousingBoard, 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 tothe State to allot house sites of 200 Sq. Yards each to 134 employees ofthe Mill, who continued to stay in their respective quarters despite serviceof notice dated 17.07.1986 demanding them to vacate the quarters. TheState Government vide G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007, accepted theproposal of the KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards developed plot free of costto each of 134 ex-employees of the erstwhile Mill, as a rehabilitation andwelfare measure. That, thereafter, 318 retired workers who also took AB

C

DEF

GH

Avoluntary retirement along with other 134 workers made representation/s to allot to them also 200 Sq. Yards plot as allotted to other 134 workersout of the remaining land admeasuring Acres 10.24 Gunthas. The RevenueDivisional Officer, Warangal directed the Tehsildar, Warangal to inquireabout the land to an extent of Acres 10.24 Gunthas situated at Laxmipuraand Khila, Warangal. VRO of Laxmipura, Warangal submitted the reportBto the Tehsildar submitting that the land to extent of Acres 5 situated atLaxmipura village and the land to an extent of Acres 5.24 Gunthas situatedat village Khila, Warangal total admeasuring Acres 10.24 Gunthas is invacant possession and therefore, the said land is able to allocate houseplots to members of Workers Association, who have been 318 employees,Chave not been allotted the house plots. Thereafter, nothing further wasdone to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots each free of cost to theremaining 318 ex-employees / workers of the Mill who also took voluntaryretirement along with other 134 workers who were allotted 200 Sq. Yardsof developed plots each free of cost and therefore, the WorkersAssociation filed the Writ Petition before the High Court being WritDPetition No.26642 of 2007. That, by a detailed and reasoned judgmentand order the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition anddirected the respondents to allot house sites of 200 Sq. Yards each to allthe eligible 318 members of the Workers Association by observing thatthey are at par with other 134 ex-employees of the Mill, who wereEalready allotted house sits of an extent of 200 Sq. Yards each as per theG.O. No.463 dated 26.07.2007.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge, both, the NTC as well as the KUDAfiled Writ Appeals before the Division Bench and by the impugnedFcommon judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court hasallowed the said Writ Appeals and has quashed and set aside the judgmentand order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Hence, the present Appeals.

3. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate hasGappeared on behalf of the appellant, Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocatehas appeared on behalf of the KUDA and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learnedASG has appeared on behalf of the NTC and the Union of India.

4. Ms. Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate appearing onbehalf of the appellant – Workers Association has vehemently submittedH

that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench ofthe High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and settingaside the well-reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned SingleJudge and consequently dismissing the writ petition filed by the WorkersAssociation.

4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Ramakrishnan, learnedSenior Advocate that the High Court has not properly appreciated andconsidered the fact that KUDA as well as the NTC are Stateinstrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution amenable to Article226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, all of them must conductthemselves as behooves a welfare state. It is submitted that the learnedSingle Judge of the High Court rightly observed and held that not allotting200 Sq. Yards plots to the remaining 318 workmen would be discriminatoryand violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submittedthat as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge the remaining 318workmen were at par with other 134 workmen who were allotted 200Sq. Yards plot free of cost. It is submitted that as such there is nodifferentia between 134 workmen who also took voluntary retirementand the remaining 318 workmen who also took the voluntary retirementalong with other 134 workmen who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards plotsfree 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, 134workmen / employees did not vacate the quarters. It is submitted thatassuming that 318 remaining workmen vacated the quarters out of theirown volition pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986, merely becauseother 134 workmen, who did not vacate the quarters despite the serviceof notice dated 17.07.1986, cannot be said to be at a higher pedestalthan the law abiding workmen who vacated the quarters pursuant to thenotice dated 17.07.1986. It is submitted that therefore as such the equalsare treated unequally and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightlydirected 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 havevacated the quarters, in that case, they would have also been allotted200 Sq. Yards plots at par with 134 workmen who were allotted 200 Sq.Yards plots free of cost.

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

4.4 It is submitted that as rightly observed by the learned SingleJudge, there was no difference at all between 318 remaining workmenand 134 workmen who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards plots.

A

4.5 It is submitted that as such not allotting 200 Sq. Yards plots toremaining 318 workmen would tantamount to punishing them forBcomplying with the eviction notice while rewarding 134 workmen fordefying it which is manifestly unjust.

4.6 It is further submitted that as such the purpose of allotment ofthe plots was for rehabilitation and welfare of the workmen. It is submittedthat in fact right from very beginning even when the proceedings wereCbefore the Ministry of Labour, while considering the request of the Millfor closure, there was already a demand on behalf of the workers toallot them quarters at concessional rates. It is submitted that thereaftereven the Deputy Chairman of the KUDA made a request to allot 200Sq. Yards plots to 134 workmen on the ground of rehabilitation and welfareof the workmen. It is submitted that for the first time before the HighDCourt and that too in the affidavit in reply, the KUDA came out with acase that to avoid litigation with encroachers a decision was taken toallot 200 Sq. Yards plots to those 134 workmen who continued to be inoccupation and possession of the quarters. It is submitted that when theproposal was made by the KUDA for allotment of 200 Sq. Yards plots toE134 workmen, that was not the ground pleaded.

4.7 It is submitted that even otherwise to allot the plots free ofcost to avoid litigation with encroachers had no rationale nexus with thepurpose and such a difference is absolutely irrelevant more particularlywhen as per the initial case of KUDA the plots were allotted for welfareand rehabilitation.F

4.8 It is submitted that other 318 workmen not only lost theirlivelihood but also a place of abode and therefore, in fact they weremuch more in need of welfare and rehabilitation measures.

4.9 It is submitted that mandamus can be issued to the respondentsGwho are State instrumentalities to provide developed plots of land to 318ex-workmen on parity with 134 ex-workmen, to enforce theirconstitutional right against discrimination and obligation of the State andits instrumentalities to be fair and non-discriminatory in distribution ofState largesse. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in thecase of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International AirportH

Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 (Paras 11 and 12) and in thecase of D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 (Paras 36and 42).

4.10 It is submitted that even 134 workers were allotted the plotswithout having any legal right and without having any legal relationshipor privity of contract with the KUDA and the State. It is submitted thattherefore the benefit which was granted to other 134 workers cannot bedenied to remaining 318 workmen on the ground that there is / was nolegal relationship or privity of contract with KUDA and the StateGovernment. It is submitted that as such the right to equality guaranteedunder Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a right available to theremaining 318 workers which as such is enforceable.

Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the presentAppeals.

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 assuch as rightly observed by the Division Bench, a writ of mandamuscould 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 inquestion is a private land and not a government land.

5.2 It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Giri, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the KUDA that KUDA is an independentorganization and KUDA purchased the land belonging to the NTC / Millon payment of full sale consideration and as it was found that 134employees continued to occupy the quarters and therefore, it was notpossible for the KUDA to develop the land allotted / purchased andtherefore, to avoid any litigation it was decided to allot 200 Sq. Yards ofplot free of cost out of 135.33 Acres of land allotted to the KUDA. It issubmitted that so far as the remaining other 318 ex-employees areconcerned, they had already vacated the quarters and therefore, theywere not in possession of the quarters and therefore, their cases cannotbe compared with those who continued to be in occupation and possessionof the quarters. It is submitted that therefore the remaining 318 ex-employees cannot be said to be at par with those 134 workmen whowere allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost being in occupation andpossession of the quarters and without removing them and/or without A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asettling the dispute with them it was not possible for the KUDA to developthe land acquired / allotted to the KUDA. It is submitted that thereforethe Division Bench of the High Court has rightly set aside the judgmentand order passed by the learned Single Judge and has rightly dismissedthe writ petitions.B5.3 It is further submitted by Mr. Giri, learned Counsel appearingon behalf of the KUDA that as such there was no privity of contractand/or any relationship with/between the KUDA / State and the ex-employees / workmen of the Mill. It is submitted that therefore the KUDAwas not obliged to allot the plots to ex-workmen free of cost. It is submittedthat therefore as such there was no vested right in favour of the ex-Cworkmen / employees of the Mill to get 200 Sq. Yards plots free of costfrom KUDA.

5.4 It is submitted that as 134 ex-workmen / employees werefound to be in possession and occupation of the quarters and therefore,it was found that without evicting them and/or removing them and/orDwithout resolving the dispute with them it would not be possible for theKUDA to develop the land acquired and therefore, it was under the saidcompulsion that a conscious decision was taken to allot 200 Sq. Yards ofplots free of cost to those 134 ex-employees who continued to be inoccupation and possession of the quarters. It is submitted that thereforeEin absence of any vested right in favour of 318 ex-employees, no writ ofmandamus could have been issued by the learned Single Judge andtherefore, the Division Bench has rightly interfered with the order passedby the learned Single Judge.

5.5 It is further submitted by Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior AdvocateFthat if any relief the remaining 318 ex-employees are entitled to, thesame can be only from the NTC and the Mill and/or out of the remainingland admeasuring 11 Acres owned by the NTC. It is submitted thathowever there shall not be any liability of the KUDA to allot any plotfree of cost to the ex-employees from the land allotted to / purchased bythe KUDA.G

5.6 Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf ofthe respondent Nos.2 and 3 has vehemently submitted that as such thewrit petition preferred by the appellant – Workers Association beforethe High Court itself was not maintainable. It is submitted that in the writpetition it was prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing theHrespondents 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 writof mandamus is maintainable only if the person aggrieved has a legalright 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 ofSettlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr, (2002) 4 SCC638; Lalaram and Others vs. Jaipur Development Authority andAnother, (2016) 11 SCC 31 and Municipal Corporation of GreaterMumbai 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 claimedthe right on the basis of G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007. It is submittedthat under the said Government Order the State of Andhra Pradeshgranted approval to KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards of land to 134 ex-employees of the 4[th] respondent. It is submitted that the land where the4[th] respondent was situated was taken over by the Central Governmentunder the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974. That,thereafter, the Estate Sale Committee constituted by the CentralGovernment sold different extent of the land to the Andhra PradeshHousing Board, KUDA and others. It is submitted that KUDA isincorporated under a statute with the object to develop infrastructure inthe area. It is submitted that it was found by KUDA that there were 134persons remaining in unauthorized occupation of a part of the landpurchased by them. It is submitted that as such there was no contractualrelationship between KUDA and said 134 persons. There was no otherrelationship between the two as provided for by any law. It is submittedthat at no point of time was any legal obligation imposed on KUDA toallot any land to 134 persons. That, their only right was that they wereerstwhile employees of the 4[th] respondent Mills and that they hadvoluntarily retired from the services of the Mills in the year 2002. It issubmitted that the appellant Workers Association also does not have anycase that there was any legal obligation attached to the land purchasedby KUDA from which any person either 134 persons who continued toremain in unauthorized occupation of the land or 318 members of theWorkers Association could enforce any legal right against the said land.It is submitted that no covenant or obligation ran with the land at anypoint of time. It is submitted that in fact as per the Sick TextileUndertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974, the vesting of the land in theCentral Government is free from any trust / obligation / mortgage / charge AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A/ lien and all other encumbrances affecting it. It is submitted that thereforethe two vital conditions requisite for a constitutional Court to issue a writof mandamus viz. a legal right with the person who approaches theCourt and a legal duty / obligation imposed on the person against whomthe relief is sought, are both absent in the instant case.

B5.8 It is further submitted that even the intelligible differentia canbe explained by way of an affidavit before this Court. It is submitted thatthe Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Ram KrishnaDalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & Others, 1959 SCR 279rejected the contention that affidavits cannot be looked into and differentiashould be forthcoming from the Notification only. It is submitted that theCG.O. No.463 shows that there was urgency for development. It issubmitted that KUDA would have had to undertake the litigation processwhich was contrary to its commercial interest and would defeat thepurpose for which the land was bought i.e. development for the city ofWarangal and surrounding areas. It is submitted that therefore theDallotment in favour of 134 persons – erstwhile employees was moreoverin the nature of settlement, so that the work of development could beundertaken at a quick pace.

5.9 It is further submitted that KUDA is an authority createdunder the Telangana Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 to carryEout the development activities inter alia in Warangal District in the Stateof Telangana. It is submitted that as such the members of the WorkersAssociation have no relation with the 2[nd] respondent, let alone that ofemployer – employee. It is submitted that therefore as there exists noobligation on the 2[nd] respondent (KUDA) to allot plots of 200 Sq. Yardseach to the employees of the 4[th] respondent herein.F

It is submitted that even being the statutory authority, the assetsof the 2[nd] respondent can be used only for the fulfillment of the objectlaid down in that behalf by the statute in question. It is submitted thatallotment of sizable portion of land to 318 erstwhile employees of theMills is not a prescribed objective. It is submitted that justification ofGG.O. No.463 in question was only with the development of the landundertaken by the 2[nd] respondent after its purchase was seriouslyhampered by the continuous unauthorized occupation by the erstwhile134 ex-employees of the Mills. It is submitted that the said G.O. No.463obviously does not involve the recognition of any legal right of the saidH134 persons.

5.10 It is further submitted by Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocatethat it is true that the allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of plot in the year 2007in favour of 134 persons took place only because the said 134 personsrefused to vacate the quarters and had remained in unauthorizedoccupation. It is submitted that however the allotment was not inrecognition of any unauthorized occupation and was not definitely indischarge of any legal obligation on the part of KUDA. It is submittedthat it was simply on ground of expediting the process of development ofthe land which was the reason why KUDA had to get unencumberedand absolute unhampered possession of the remaining extent of land atthe earliest.

5.11 It is submitted that assuming that the allotment under theG.O. No.463 was wrong and was a mistake, the same cannot be offereda basis for legally enforceable claim at the instance of the appellantAssociation. It is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of theState of Odisha vs. Anup Kumar Senapati, (2019) 19 SCC 626, twowrongs do not make a right and there is no concept of negative equalitycontained in Article 14 of the Constitution.

Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the presentAppeals

6. The present Appeals are also opposed by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,learned ASG appearing on behalf of the NTC as well as the Union ofIndia. It is submitted by Ms. Bhati that as such in the process ofimplementation of Revival Scheme approved by BIFR, the entire landadmeasuring Acres 201.02 Cents belonging to the Mill was put to saleby the Asset Sale Committee constituted by the Government of Indiaand on 23.01.2004, the sale was approved. It is submitted that accordinglyland admeasuring Acres 65.69 Cents was sold to Andhra Pradesh HousingBoard and Acres 135.33 Cents to KUDA. It is submitted that thereafterthe Committee was dissolved vide BIFR Order dated 20.08.2014. It issubmitted that as per Section 3 of the Sick Textile Undertakings(Nationalization) Act, 1974, the right, title and interest of Azam Jahi Millsshall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the CentralGovernment. It is submitted that the NTC and the Mills thereafter areonly the custodian of the Azam Jahi Mills and its properties on behalf ofthe Central Government who is the absolute owner.

6.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhati that out of the total Acres135.33 Cents sold to KUDA, only Acres 117.20 Cents was available for AB

C

D

EFG

H

Aregistration as Acres 14.88 Cents was under encroachment. It issubmitted that as such as on date, around 5 Acres of land only is in thepossession of the Mill as a custodian on behalf of the Central Governmentwho is the absolute owner of the said properties. It is submitted that assuch as per the OM No.8(18)/2020-E-II(A) dated 28.03.2011 of theDepartment of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance (Government of India),Ba specific approval of the Union Cabinet is required by all the Ministrieswith regard to transfer or alienation of land held by the Government orGovernment controlled statutory authorities.

6.2 It is submitted that after the sale was concluded between theNTC and KUDA, the Vice Chairman of KUDA requested theCGovernment of Andhra Pradesh for permission / sanction for allotmentof 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots to 134 ex-workers of the Mills whohad encroached the subject land and were not vacating the said land. Itis submitted that based on the request of Vice Chairman, KUDA,Government permitted KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards to each of the 134Derstwhile workers of the Mills. It is submitted that as such 200 Sq. Yardsof the plots were neither allotted by the NTC / Mill / Central Governmentnor they were party to the arrangement between 134 erstwhile employeesof the KUDA. It is submitted that therefore the appellant cannot seekallotment of land from the NTC / Mills / Central Government.

E6.3 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhati, learned ASG that in factall the ex-employees of the Mill accepted the voluntary retirement underthe Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 and they were paidall the benefits accrued under the Modified Voluntary Retirement Schemeof 2002 in the year 2002 itself. It is submitted that therefore on and afterthe ex-employees of the Mills took voluntary retirement and after theFMill came to be closed after obtaining appropriate closure order fromthe Ministry, thereafter there is no relationship continued between theemployees / ex-employees and the NTC / Central Government / Mills.It is submitted that therefore the appellants are not entitled to any reliefagainst the Central Government / NTC / Mills.G

6.4 It is further submitted that the allotment of plots free of costwas never the part of Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002.It is submitted that all the erstwhile employees who opted for voluntaryretirement under the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002were completely aware of the benefits that would be offered by way ofHgolden 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 beallotted to 134 ex-employees to avoid the cost of litigation, there is noquestion of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as alleged.It is submitted that in any case the Central Government / NTC / Millshad nothing to do with the decision taken by the KUDA. It is submittedthat therefore the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly allowedthe appeal preferred by the NTC and has rightly quashed and set asidethe judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and hasrightly consequentially dismissed the writ petition.

7. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties atlength.

7.1 The appellant Workers Association for and on behalf of 318ex-employees of the respondent No.4 – Mills approached the High Courtby way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaand prayed to allot them 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost at par withother 134 employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills.

It was the specific case on behalf of 318 ex-employees of theerstwhile 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 of134 employees) are similarly situated; the employees belonging to boththe classes were the employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills;that all of them took the voluntary retirement under the Modified VoluntaryRetirement Scheme of 2002 together; all were similarly situated in grantingthe benefit of the modified voluntary scheme; all were allotted the quartersand were residing in the quarters. It was the case on behalf of theemployees that the only difference was that as law abiding persons,they vacated the quarters after they were served with the notice dated17.07.1986 to vacate the quarters and that those 134 ex-employees whoas such were similarly situated did not vacate the quarters despite thenotice 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 plotsfree of cost to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfaremeasure. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directedthe 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 toallot them accordingly by observing that not allotting similar 200 Sq.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AYards of plots free of cost to remaining employees – 318 ex-employeesis discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. TheDivision Bench of the High Court quashed and set aside the judgmentand order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present Appeals.

8. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the respectiveBparties, the short question which is posed for consideration of this Courtis, whether the remaining 318 ex-employees of the respondent No.4Mills (erstwhile) can claim the parity and equality vis-a-vis other similarlysituated 134 ex-employees of the respondent No.4 Mills (erstwhile) andcan claim 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost? The incidental questionswhich are posed for consideration of this Court as argued and suggestedCby the learned Counsel for the respective parties would be as follows:

(1) Whether the writ petition preferred by the appellantAssociation before the High Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for the relief sought was maintainable?

D(2)Whether was there any legal right available to the appellantAssociation for the relief sought in the writ petition i.e. forallotment of 200 Sq. Yards plots of land?

(3) Does Article 14 of the Constitution have any application inthe present case?

E(4)Whether to determine the intelligible differentia the affidavitfiled on behalf of the concerned respondents can be lookedinto and/or relied upon?

(5) Whether any relief can be claimed against KUDA and/oragainst the NTC / respondent No.4 Mills?F9. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respectiveparties at length on the aforesaid issues.

At the outset it is required to be noted that 318 ex-employees ofthe erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills prayed for equality and claimed thereliefs at par with other similarly situated 134 ex-employees of theGerstwhile respondent No.4 Mills who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards ofplots free of cost.

9.1 It is to be noted and it cannot be disputed that even at onepoint of time as admitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf ofKUDA that 318 ex-employees who were not allotted 200 Sq. Yards ofHplots are as such similarly situated to those 134 ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plotfree 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 themwere ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. All of themwere residing in the quarters allotted by the Mills. All of them tookvoluntary retirement under the Modified Voluntary Scheme in the year2002. All of them got the benefits under the Modified VoluntaryRetirement Scheme of 2002 and all of them were relieved on and from31.08.2002. However, 318 ex-employees vacated their quarters fromtime to time pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. Thus, they abidedthe notice dated 17.07.1986. However, despite the notice dated 17.07.1986and even after they were relieved on and from 31.08.2002, 134 ex-employees continued to retain the quarters and they were in unauthorizedoccupation of the quarters. Therefore, the only difference between 134ex-employees and 318 ex-employees was that 318 ex-employees werelaw abiding persons who vacated the quarters pursuant to the noticedated 17.07.1986 and 134 ex-employees remained in unauthorizedoccupation of the quarters.

At this stage it is required to be noted that at the time when theproceedings for closure of respondent No.4 Mill was held before theMinistry of Labour, a request was made to allot the quarters to theconcerned workmen at reasonable rates and in the order granting approvalfor closure, it was submitted on behalf of the Mills that the request toallot the quarters is under consideration by the management. That, afterthe closure permission, proceedings were initiated by KUDA to acquirethe land of respondent No.4 Mills to an extent of 135.33 Acres. However,it appears that the Vice Chairman of KUDA vide letter / communicationdated 28.12.2006 submitted their proposal to permit KUDA to allot 200Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees of erstwhile respondentNo.4 Mills. In the letter it was specifically mentioned that to avoid unduehardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure a proposal wasmade 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 erstwhilerespondent No.4 Mills. Vide G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007, the StateGovernment accepted the said proposal and granted the permission toallot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost to each of 134employees of erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Nothing further wasmentioned either in the communication / letter dated 28.12.2006 nor inthe G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007 that to avoid any litigation and/or AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Alitigation cost as now stated in the affidavit in reply it was proposed toallot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-employees. However, thereafterwhen a request was made on behalf of the remaining 318 ex-employees,who as such were similarly situated to those 134 ex-employees, also toallot to them 200 Sq. Yards of house plots, their request came to beturned down. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances and theBobservations made hereinabove, it is found that 318 ex-employees werenot allotted the 200 Sq. Yards of plots and 134 ex-employees who wereallotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost who as such were similarlysituated and as such there is no difference between them at all. On thecontrary, 318 ex-employees can be said to be law abiding ex-employeesCwho vacated the quarters after 1986 but before 2002 pursuant to thenotice dated 17.07.1986. It is not in dispute that 134 ex-employees whowere allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost were in unauthorizedoccupation of the quarters and they did not vacate the quarters despitethe notice dated 17.07.1986 and even after 31.08.2002 when theyaccepted the voluntary retirement and relieved. Therefore, to allot theDplots to those employees who were found to be in unauthorized occupationwould tantamount to giving a premium to their illegality and remaining inoccupation and possession of the quarters illegally and unauthorizedly.As observed hereinabove, as both the classes of employees are found tobe similarly situated except the difference as observed hereinabove, 318Eex-employees who as such were similarly situated with those 134 ex-employees when claimed the equality and parity, as such the learnedSingle Judge rightly issued the writ of mandamus and directed therespondents to treat all of them at par and allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plotsto remaining 318 ex-employees also as per the G.O. No.463.

F9.2 The submission on behalf of the respondents more particularlylearned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the appellantAssociation – 318 ex-employees have no legal right and that respondentNos.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 andGthe same is enforceable against State / State instrumentalities in exerciseof powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find nojustification at all in treating 318 ex-employees different from those 134ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. Wefind that as such the equals are treated unequally and therefore, whenHthe equals are treated unequally, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the appellants were entitled to the relief soughteven in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.9.3 The concept of equality before the law and equal protectionof the laws emerges from the fundamental right expressed in Article 14of the Constitution. Equality is a definite concept.

The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from thevery nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarlycircumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. Equality is amongstequals. Classification is therefore to be founded on substantial differenceswhich distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of thegroups and such differential attributes must bear in just and rationalrelation to the object sought to be achieved.

In a given case Article 14 of the Constitution may permit a validclassification. However, a classification to be followed must necessarilysatisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on ajust objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of personsfrom another must have a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to beachieved. In the present case allotment of 200 Sq.Yards free of cost to134 employees wasto avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and asa welfare measure. As observed hereinabove those 318 ex-employeeswho are denied the benefit of allotment of 200 Sq.Yards of plots free ofcost are similarly placed persons with that of 134 employees who areallotted 200 Sq.Yards plots free of cost. There is no rationale justificationin providing differential treatment to one class of ex-employees similarlyplaced 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 thisCourt in the form of counter affidavit that to avoid any litigation andlitigation cost and to get vacant possession of the remaining land, it wasproposed and decided to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134ex-employees who were found to be in occupation and possession ofthe 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 decisionin the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia (Supra) that to determine theintelligible differentia an affidavit produced before this Court can beconsidered and/or referred to is concerned, the aforesaid seems to beattractive but has no substance in the facts and circumstances of thecase. 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 A

BC

DE

F

G

H

A200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees, there was noreference at all that to avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost it wasproposed to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. As observedhereinabove 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 tothe ex-employees and as a welfare measure”. Even in paragraph 4 ofBthe G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007, the State Government has specificallyobserved that after careful consideration of the matter, “as a rehabilitationand a welfare measure”, Government has agreed to the proposal of theVice Chairman, KUDA and permit them to allot 200 Sq. Yards ofdeveloped plots free of cost to each 134 ex-employees of the erstwhileCrespondent No.4 Mills. Therefore, the allotment of 200 Sq. Yards ofplots free of cost to 134 ex-employees was as a rehabilitation and welfaremeasure of ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Evenbefore the learned Single Judge also, it was not the case pleaded beforethe High Court that those 134 persons were allotted 200 Sq. Yards ofplots free of cost to avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost which isDnow pleaded for the first time before this Court. The case on behalf ofthe respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been dealt with by the learned SingleJudge in paragraph 5 which reads as under:

“5. The averments in the counter affidavit of the 3[rd]respondent to the extent relevant, in brief, are as follows:EThe President of the petitioner association in his personalcapacity along with four others had filed a court case beforethe District Legal Services Authority, Warangal and it is postedto 03.03.2008 for hearing. Hence, the writ petition is notmaintainable. The members of the petitioner association hadFvoluntarily retired from the services of the mill under modifiedVRS 2002. Their accounts were settled by the NTC long timeback. Hence, the request for allotment of house sites to themembers of the petitioner association on par with (134) otheremployees does not arise for consideration. In fact, the 3[rd]Grespondent KUDA had taken over possession of (134)quarters covered in an area of Ac.117.00 guntas of land. Theallotment of plots to the (134) workers, who were staying inthe quarters, was considered as a measure of rehabilitationand welfare by the Government as well as KUDA. There is noillegality or irregularity in the matter. KUDA had submittedH

proposals to the Government for allotment of plots to (134)workers only, as they were still continuing to stay in thequarters at the time of taking over physical possession of theland by KUDA from NTC. The Government had issued ordersfor allotment of plots to those (134) employees who were bythen staying in the quarters. This respondent cannot allot plotsto the members of the petitioner association as per theGovernment Orders referred to in the writ petition. Thisrespondent received representation dated 15.09.2007.However, it is not considered as the case of the members ofthe petitioner association does not stand on the same footingas that of the (134) former employees, who had continued tostay in the existing quarters, and as the allotment of sites wasmade to them as per the Government orders. The members ofthe petitioner association who had voluntarily retired undera modified voluntary scheme had vacated the quarters andhad left the place already. At the time of taking over possessionby the KUDA, (134) ex-workers only were staying in thequarters. The proposal for allotment of house plots of 200square yards each was agreed upon by the respondents 2and 3. Such similar benefit cannot be extended to the retiredemployees other than (134) ex-workers as per the principleof the decision taken in this regard by this respondent andthe Government. This respondent has purchased the land fromthe NTC and had specifically agreed for allotment of housesites to those ex-employees only who were still staying in thequarters by that time. This respondent and the Governmentdid not agree for allotment of sites to the members of thepetitioner association. This respondent had taken up sites andservices scheme and had incurred a lot of expenditure oninfrastructure facilities like provision of roads, water supply,drainage, electricity, parks development etc. and disposingthe plots in public open auction. In view of the financialposition of the third respondent, it is not possible to allot plotsto any other retired employees, under any circumstances. Themembers of the petitioner association vacated the quarterslong time back and are residing elsewhere and they were notstaying in the mill quarters at the time of the proposal of thescheme for purchase of land by this respondent from the 1[st]

ABC

DE

F

G

H

ABC

DE

F

G

H

Arespondent and therefore, the members of the petitionerassociation are not eligible for allotment of any house siteson par with the other (134) workers. The project was takenup on “as is where is” and “as is what is” basis. The membersof the petitioner association have no right to demand plotsand this respondent has no liability to allot plots to the membersBof the petitioner association as per the project deal. Themembers of the petitioner association cannot re-enter thepicture and seek allotment of house sites. As per theGovernment Order, the Project has to be finalized to raisefunds for City infrastructure development and therefore, thisCrespondent was obliged to raise funds through the saleproceeds by selling plots. Even if any of the land is available,it is for the development of KUDA and city and not reservedfor allotment to the petitioners on free of cost on par with(134) members. There is no scope for sparing the land of thisrespondent to the members of the petitioner association.DHence, the writ petition may be dismissed.”

9.5 From the above and even from the grounds of appeal beforethe Division Bench, respondents tried to justify their action by submittingthat case of 318 ex-employees is not comparable with those of 134 ex-employees as 318 ex-employees vacated the quarters and they wereEnot in possession and that only 134 ex-employees remained in possessionof the quarters. For the first time before this Court, in the counteraffidavit, it is now the case on behalf of the respondent KUDA andothers that to avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost, it was proposed toallot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. The respondents therefore Fcannot be permitted to improve their case which was not even theircase earlier viz. at the time when they made a proposal to permit themto allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees and evenit was not the case so stated in the G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007 andeven it was not the case before the High Court. Therefore, the respondents more particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot beGpermitted to improve their case by filing the affidavit before this Courtfor the first time. Therefore, the decision of this Court in the case of ShriRam Krishna Dalmia (Supra), which has been relied upon by the learnedCounsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, shall not be applicableto the facts of the case on hand. Even otherwise on going through theHentire 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 anyassistance to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. It was the case with respectto the classification and the Union Government tried to justify the basisof classification by way of affidavit and it was the case on behalf of thewrit petitioners that the basis of classification must appear on the faceof the notification itself and reference cannot be made to any extraneousmatter and to that it is observed and held that there can be no objectionto the matters brought to the notice of the Court by way of affidavitbeing taken into consideration alongwith the matters specified in thenotification in order to ascertain whether there was any valid basis fortreating the appellants and/or their companies as a class by themselves.We fail to appreciate as to how the said decision shall be applicable tothe facts of the case on hand.

9.6 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondentNos.2 and 3 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of AnupKumar Senapati (Supra) that there is no concept of negative equalityunder Article 14 of the Constitution and the submission that merelybecause there was any mistake on the part of the respondents in allotting200 Sq. Yards of land to the said 138 persons and therefore, the appellantscannot 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 case onbehalf of the respondents that those 134 persons were allotted the plotsby 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 ofapplicability of any negative equality. Therefore, the aforesaid decisionshall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

9.7 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondentsthat they do not have any sufficient land at present to allot 200 Sq. Yardsof plots to remaining 318 ex-employees and that all those 318 ex-employees vacated the quarters voluntarily and they settled in their housesis concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that merely becausefor whatever reason and even as a law abiding person they vacated thequarters, they cannot be put to disadvantageous situation being a lawabiding 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 bemany ex-employees who were compelled to vacate the quarters andwho might not have settled or might be staying in a one room house. In AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Aany case, to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-employees to avoidundue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure and as arehabilitation to only 134 case ex-employees and not other ex-employeessimilarly situated, would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 ofthe Constitution. As observed hereinabove, on the contrary, to allot theplots to 134 employees on the ground that they were in unauthorizedBoccupation and therefore, to avoid the litigation / litigation cost would begiving a premium to those who continued to be in illegal unauthorizedoccupation and to punish those ex-employees who were found to be lawabiding and vacated the quarters pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986.Even the justification to differentiate the case between two classes ofCex-employees is not germane. If remaining 318 ex-employees would nothave vacated the quarters and would have remained in unauthorizedoccupation, even as per the case on behalf of the respondents is accepted,then those who remained in unauthorized occupation subsequently mighthave been allotted to 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost like 134 ex-employees who were found to be in unauthorized occupation. Therefore,Das such there is no justification at all to deny allotment of 200 Sq. Yardsof plots free of cost to each of 318 ex-employees, which were allotted toother 134 ex-employees who otherwise were similarly situated. It willbe open for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to approach the respondentNo.1 and/or the State Government for allotment of additional land and/Eor to allot the plots from the remaining land of the respondent No.4 Millswhich 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, boththese Appeals succeed. Impugned judgment and order dated 19.02.2020Fpassed by the High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad inWrit Appeal Nos.427 of 2016 and 431 of 2016 are hereby quashed andset aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judgein Writ Petition No.26642 of 2007 is hereby restored and the respondentsmore particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to treatand consider the remaining 318 ex-employees of the erstwhile respondentGNo.4 – Azam Jahi Mills at par with other 134 ex-employees who wereallotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost as per the Government OrderNo.463 dated 27.06.2007. However, it is observed that it will be openfor KUDA to approach the State Government and/or the respondentNos.1 and 4 / the Central Government to allot additional plot / land, mayHbe out of the remaining land available with the Central Government /

MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

National Textile Corporation Limited of the erstwhile respondent No.4Mills and the same may be considered in larger public interest. Theaforesaid exercise of allotment of plots to remaining 318 ex-employees– members of the appellant – Workers Association shall be completedwithin a period of six months from today. Both the present Appeals areallowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, thereshall be no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H