Summary
The Court directed equal rehabilitation treatment for 318 former mill workers who had vacated their quarters, compared with 134 similarly placed former workers allotted free 200-square-yard plots. Compliance with eviction notices was not a rational basis for denying the welfare benefit while rewarding continued unauthorised occupation. The constitutional equality claim was enforceable by mandamus against State instrumentalities. The Single Judge’s relief was restored, and the allotment exercise was directed to be completed within six months.
Issues
- Whether former workers who vacated quarters could be denied the rehabilitation plots granted to otherwise similarly situated workers who remained in occupation.
- Whether Article 14 supplied an enforceable basis for mandamus despite the absence of a contractual entitlement to plots.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 226, Constitution of IndiaUnjustified unequal treatment in the welfare allotment furnished an enforceable equality claim against the State instrumentalities. (¶¶ 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 10)
Held
- The two groups had shared the material employment, accommodation and voluntary-retirement circumstances. Their relevant difference was that 318 workers complied with the direction to vacate, whereas 134 continued in unauthorised occupation. That difference did not rationally justify withholding a rehabilitation and welfare benefit from the former group. (¶¶ 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.7)
- The right to equal treatment under Article 14 could be enforced through Article 226 against State instrumentalities. Absence of contractual privity or a separately vested contractual right did not answer the established discrimination. (¶ 9.2)
- The original proposal and Government Order identified rehabilitation, welfare and avoidance of hardship as the purpose. Respondents could not improve their case for the first time in this Court by recasting the allotment as a measure solely to avoid litigation costs. This conclusion was specific to the record and did not generally exclude explanatory affidavits in classification cases. (¶¶ 9.4, 9.5)
- Negative equality was inapplicable because the respondents had not treated the original 134 allotments as mistaken or unlawful. Nor could the other workers be presumed suitably settled merely because they had vacated their quarters. (¶¶ 9.6, 9.7)
- The Single Judge’s order was restored and the remaining workers were to receive parity in allotment of free 200-square-yard plots. KUDA could approach the State, NTC or Central Government for additional land, including available former mill land; the allotment exercise was to finish within six months. (¶¶ 9.7, 10)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; Division Bench judgment set aside and Single Judge’s order restored. Respondents, particularly KUDA and the concerned authority, directed to complete the plot-allotment exercise for the remaining 318 workers within six months, with liberty to seek additional land.