# MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOCIATION v. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS

- **Citation:** [2021] 11 S.C.R. 321
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-10-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 6260-61 of 2021
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, A. S. Bopanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/modified-voluntary-retirement-scheme-of-2002-of-azam-jahi-mill-workers-34754
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Constitution of India:
Art. 14 - Right to equality - 318 ex-employees of the erstwhile
Mill seeking parity with a group of 134 ex-employees who were
allotted 200 sq. yards of plots free of cost - Workers/employees of
the Mill were allotted employees' quarter constructed and owned
by the Mill - Said employees including the members of the workers
association took voluntary retirement - Thereafter, issuance of notice
to vacate the quarters - 318 employees including the members of
the association forcefully evicted, however, 138 employees continued
to stay in their respective quarters - Subsequently, closure of the
Mill and major portion of the land allotted to Kakatiya Urban
Development Authority-KUDA - Submission of proposal by KUDA
to State Government to allot 200 sq. yards developed plot free of
cost to each of 134 ex-employee of the Mill as a rehabilitation and
welfare measure, which was accepted by the State Government -
Thereafter, representation by 318 retired workers seeking allotment
of 200 sq. yard plot as allotted to other 134 workers - Writ petition
by the Workers Association - Allowed by the Single Judge, however,
dismissed by the Division Bench - On appeal, held: Remaining 318
ex-employees of the erstwhile Mills can claim the parity and equality
vis-a-vis other similarly situated 134 ex-employees of the Mills and
can claim 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost - As a law abiding
person, 318 employees vacated the quarters and as such they cannot
be put to disadvantageous situation - To allot 200 Sq. Yards of
plots to 134 ex-employees to avoid undue hardship to the exemployees and as a rehabilitation and welfare measure, and not to
other ex-employees similarly situated, would be discriminatory and
violative of Art.14 - There is no rationale justification in providing
differential treatment to one class of ex-employees similarly placed
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 321
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
with another class of ex-employees who are allotted the plots - Thus,
the order passed by the Division Bench is quashed and set aside
and that of the Single Judge is restored.
Art. 14 - Concept of equality - Valid classification - Held:
Art. 14 may permit valid classification - Classification must
necessarily satisfy two tests-distinguishing rationale has to be based
on a just objective, and the choice of differentiating one set of
persons from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objects
sought to be achieved.
 Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 At the time when the proceedings for closure
of respondent No.4 Mill was held before the Ministry of Labour,
a request was made to allot the quarters to the concerned
workmen at reasonable rates and in the order granting approval
for closure, it was submitted on behalf of the Mills that the request
to allot the quarters is under consideration by the management.
That, after the closure permission, proceedings were initiated
by KUDA to acquire the land of respondent No.4 Mills to an
extent of 135.33 Acres. However, it appears that the Vice
Chairman of KUDA vide letter / communication dated 28.12.2006
submitted their proposal to permit KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards
of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees of erstwhile respondent
No.4 Mills. In the letter it was specifically mentioned that to avoid
undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure a
proposal was made by the Vice Chairman of KUDA to permit
KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost to
134 employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Vide G.O.
No.463 dated 27.06.2007, the State Government accepted the
said proposal and granted the permission to allot 200 Sq. Yards
of developed plots free of cost to each of 134 employees of
erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Nothing further was mentioned
either in the communication / letter dated 28.12.2006 nor in the
G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007 that to avoid any litigation and/or
litigation cost as now stated in the affidavit in r

## Text

_Characters 0–39,786 of 70,987. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39786 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
321
321
MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OF
AZAM 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 erstwhile
Mill seeking parity with a group of 134 ex-employees who were
allotted 200 sq. yards of plots free of cost - Workers/employees of
the Mill were allotted employees' quarter constructed and owned
by the Mill - Said employees including the members of the workers
association took voluntary retirement - Thereafter, issuance of notice
to vacate the quarters - 318 employees including the members of
the association forcefully evicted, however, 138 employees continued
to stay in their respective quarters - Subsequently, closure of the
Mill and major portion of the land allotted to Kakatiya Urban
Development Authority-KUDA - Submission of proposal by KUDA
to State Government to allot 200 sq. yards developed plot free of
cost to each of 134 ex-employee of the Mill as a rehabilitation and
welfare measure, which was accepted by the State Government -
Thereafter, representation by 318 retired workers seeking allotment
of 200 sq. yard plot as allotted to other 134 workers - Writ petition
by the Workers Association - Allowed by the Single Judge, however,
dismissed by the Division Bench - On appeal, held: Remaining 318
ex-employees of the erstwhile Mills can claim the parity and equality
vis-a-vis other similarly situated 134 ex-employees of the Mills and
can claim 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost - As a law abiding
person, 318 employees vacated the quarters and as such they cannot
be put to disadvantageous situation - To allot 200 Sq. Yards of
plots to 134 ex-employees to avoid undue hardship to the exemployees and as a rehabilitation and welfare measure, and not to
other ex-employees similarly situated, would be discriminatory and
violative of Art.14 - There is no rationale justification in providing
differential treatment to one class of ex-employees similarly placed
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 321
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
with another class of ex-employees who are allotted the plots - Thus,
the order passed by the Division Bench is quashed and set aside
and that of the Single Judge is restored.
Art. 14 - Concept of equality - Valid classification - Held:
Art. 14 may permit valid classification - Classification must
necessarily satisfy two tests-distinguishing rationale has to be based
on a just objective, and the choice of differentiating one set of
persons from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objects
sought to be achieved.
 Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 At the time when the proceedings for closure
of respondent No.4 Mill was held before the Ministry of Labour,
a request was made to allot the quarters to the concerned
workmen at reasonable rates and in the order granting approval
for closure, it was submitted on behalf of the Mills that the request
to allot the quarters is under consideration by the management.
That, after the closure permission, proceedings were initiated
by KUDA to acquire the land of respondent No.4 Mills to an
extent of 135.33 Acres. However, it appears that the Vice
Chairman of KUDA vide letter / communication dated 28.12.2006
submitted their proposal to permit KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards
of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees of erstwhile respondent
No.4 Mills. In the letter it was specifically mentioned that to avoid
undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure a
proposal was made by the Vice Chairman of KUDA to permit
KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost to
134 employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Vide G.O.
No.463 dated 27.06.2007, the State Government accepted the
said proposal and granted the permission to allot 200 Sq. Yards
of developed plots free of cost to each of 134 employees of
erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Nothing further was mentioned
either in the communication / letter dated 28.12.2006 nor in the
G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007 that to avoid any litigation and/or
litigation cost as now stated in the affidavit in reply it was proposed
to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-employees. However,
thereafter when a request was made on behalf of the remaining
318 ex-employees, who as such were similarly situated to those
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
134 ex-employees, also to allot to them 200 Sq. Yards of house
plots, their request came to be turned down. [Para 9.1]
1.2 From the said facts and circumstances and the
observations made, it is found that 318 ex- employees were not
allotted the 200 Sq. Yards of plots and 134 ex-employees who
were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost who as such were
similarly situated and as such there is no difference between them
at all. On the contrary, 318 ex-employees can be said to be law
abiding ex- employees who vacated the quarters after 1986 but
before 2002 pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. It is not in
dispute that 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards
of plots free of cost were in unauthorized occupation of the
quarters and they did not vacate the quarters despite the notice
dated 17.07.1986 and even after 31.08.2002 when they accepted
the voluntary retirement and relieved. Therefore, to allot the
plots to those employees who were found to be in unauthorized
occupation would tantamount to giving a premium to their
illegality and remaining in occupation and possession of the
quarters illegally and unauthorizedly. As both the classes of
employees are found to be similarly situated except the difference,
318 ex-employees who as such were similarly situated with those
134 ex-employees when claimed the equality and parity, as such
the Single Judge rightly issued the writ of mandamus and directed
the respondents to treat all of them at par and allotted 200 Sq.
Yards of plots to remaining 318 ex-employees also as per the
G.O. No.463. [Para 9.1][342-B-F]
1.3 The submission that the appellant Association - 318
ex-employees have no legal right and that respondent Nos.2 and
3 have no legal duty has no substance and cannot be accepted.
Right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution
of India is vested right in favour of the person who claims equality
and parity and the same is enforceable against State / State
instrumentalities in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. There is no justification at all in treating
318 ex-employees different from those 134 ex-employees who
were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. The equals are
treated unequally and therefore, when the equals are treated
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.
v. NTC LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
324
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
unequally, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
and therefore, the appellants were entitled to the relief sought
even in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. [Para 9.2][342-F-H]
1.4 The concept of equality before the law and equal
protection of the laws emerges from the fundamental right
expressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Equality is a definite
concept. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising
from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those who
are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment.
Equality is amongst equals. Classification is therefore to be
founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons
grouped together from those left out of the groups and such
differential attributes must bear in just and rational relation to
the object sought to be achieved. In a given case Article 14 of
the Constitution may permit a valid classification. However, a
classification to be followed must necessarily satisfy two tests.
Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just
objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of
persons from another must have a reasonable nexus to the
objects sought to be achieved. In the instant case, allotment of
200 Sq. Yards free of cost to 134 employees was to avoid undue
hardship to the ex- employees and as a welfare measure. Those
318 ex-employees who are denied the benefit of allotment of 200
Sq.Yards of plots free of cost are similarly placed persons with
that of 134 employees who are allotted 200 Sq. Yards plots free of
cost. There is no rationale justification in providing differential
treatment to one class of ex-employees similarly placed with
another class of ex-employees who are allotted the plots.
[Para 9.3][343-B-E]
1.5 So far as the case on behalf of KUDA now before this
Court in the form of counter affidavit that to avoid any litigation
and litigation cost and to get vacant possession of the remaining
land, it was proposed and decided to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots
free of cost to 134 ex-employees who were found to be in
occupation and possession of the quarters and therefore, there
was a valid reason to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
325
employees and that to determine the intelligible differentia an
affidavit produced before this Court can be considered and/or
referred to is concerned, the said seems to be attractive but has
no substance in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is to
be noted that in the proposal made by the Vice Chairman, KUDA
to the State Government in the year 2007 to permit them to allot
200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex- employees, there
was no reference at all that to avoid any litigation and/or litigation
cost it was proposed to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost.
Even when the G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007 is seen, it is found
in the letter dated 28.12.2006 that "to avoid undue hardship to
the ex-employees and as a welfare measure". Government has
agreed to the proposal of the Vice Chairman, KUDA and permit
them to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots free of cost to each
134 ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills.
Therefore, the allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to
134 ex-employees was as a rehabilitation and welfare measure of
ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Even
before the Single Judge also, it was not the case pleaded before
the High Court that those 134 persons were allotted 200 Sq.
Yards of plots free of cost to avoid any litigation and/or litigation
cost which is now pleaded for the first time before this Court, in
the counter affidavit. The respondents therefore cannot be
permitted to improve their case which was not even their case
earlier viz. at the time when they made a proposal to permit them
to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees
and even it was not the case so stated in the G.O. No.463 dated
27.06.2007 and even it was not the case before the High Court.
[Para 9.4-9.5][343-F-H; 344-A-D; 346-F-G]
1.6 So far as the submission on behalf of the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 that there is no concept of negative equality under
Article 14 of the Constitution and that merely because there was
any mistake on the part of the respondents in allotting 200 Sq.
Yards of land to the said 138 persons and therefore, the appellants
cannot claim the parity is concerned, has no substance. It was/is
never the case on behalf of the respondents that those 134
persons were allotted the plots by mistake and/or there was any
wrong committed in allotting 200 Sq. Yards of plot to the said 134
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.
v. NTC LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
persons. Therefore, there is no question of applicability of any
negative equality. [Para 9.6][347-D-E]
1.7 So far as the submission on behalf of the respondents
that they do not have any sufficient land at present to allot 200
Sq. Yards of plots to remaining 318 ex-employees and that all
those 318 ex-employees vacated the quarters voluntarily and they
settled in their houses is concerned, at the outset it is required
to be noted that merely because for whatever reason and even
as a law abiding person they vacated the quarters, they cannot be
put to disadvantageous situation being a law abiding persons.
Even it cannot be presumed that all those 318 ex-employees who
vacated the quarters and stayed elsewhere were settled. It cannot
be presumed like that without any factual data. There may be
many ex-employees who were compelled to vacate the quarters
and who might not have settled or might be staying in a one room
house. In any case, to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 exemployees to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as
a welfare measure and as a rehabilitation and not other exemployees similarly situated, would be discriminatory and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. On the contrary, to
allot the plots to 134 employees on the ground that they were in
unauthorized occupation and therefore, to avoid the litigation /
litigation cost would be giving a premium to those who continued
to be in illegal unauthorized occupation and to punish those exemployees who were found to be law abiding and vacated the
quarters pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. Even the
justification to differentiate the case between two classes of exemployees is not germane. If remaining 318 ex-employees would
not have vacated the quarters and would have remained in
unauthorized occupation, even as per the case on behalf of the
respondents is accepted, then those who remained in unauthorized
occupation subsequently might have been allotted to 200 Sq. Yards
of plots free of cost like 134 ex-employees who were found to be
in unauthorized occupation. Therefore, as such there is no
justification at all to deny allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of plots free
of cost to each of 318 ex-employees, which were allotted to other
134 ex-employees who otherwise were similarly situated.
[Para 9.7][347-F-H; 348-A-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
327
1.8 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court are quashed and set aside and the judgment and order
passed by the Single Judge is restored and the respondents more
particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to treat
and consider the remaining 318 ex- employees of the erstwhile
respondent No.4 at par with other 134 ex-employees who were
allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost as per the Government
Order No.463 dated 27.06.2007. However, it is observed that it
would be open for KUDA to approach the State Government and/
or the respondent Nos.1 and 4 / the Central Government to allot
additional plot/land, may be out of the remaining land available
with the Central Government/National Textile Corporation
Limited of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills and the same
may be considered in larger public interest. [Para 10][348-F-H;
349-A]
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar
& Others [1959] SCR 279; State of Odisha vs. Anup
Kumar Senapati (2019) 19 SCC 626 - distinguished.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport
Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489 : [1979] 3 SCR
1014; D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC
305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165; Director of Settlements, A.P.
& Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr (2002) 4 SCC 638 :
[2002] 2 SCR 661; Lalaram and Others vs. Jaipur
Development Authority and Another (2016) 11 SCC 31
: [2015] 14 SCR 403; Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai and Others vs. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa
(Deceased) Through his Legal Heir Mohd. Muqueen
Qureshi and Anr. (2019) 5 SCC 119 : [2019] 3 SCR
1036 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1979] 3 SCR 1014
referred to
Para 4.9
[1983] 2 SCR 165
referred to
Para 4.9
[2002] 2 SCR 661
referred to
Para 5.6
[2015] 14 SCR 403
referred to
Para 5.6
[2019] 3 SCR 1036
referred to
Para 5.6
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.
v. NTC LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
[1959] SCR 279
distinguished
Para 9.5
(2019) 19 SCC 626
distinguished
Para 9.6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 62606261 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2020 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal Nos.427 and
431 of 2016.
Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Shadan Farasat, Chikuddu
Prabhakar, Vinoothna Vinjam, Bharat Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mayuri
Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms. Purvat Wali, P. Venkat Reddy,
Prashant Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy For M/s Venkat Palwai Law
Associates, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 of the High Court has allowed
the said Appeals preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein - National
Textile 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
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. 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 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
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.
v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
voluntary retirement along with other 134 workers made representation/
s to allot to them 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 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 submitted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
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 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.
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.
v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
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 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 distribution of
State largesse. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the
case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
333
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.
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 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 exemployees cannot be said to be at par 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
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.
v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
334
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
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 exemployees / 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 exworkmen / 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 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. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
335
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 to allot 200 Sq. Yards of land to 134 exemployees of the 4th respondent. It is submitted that the land where the
4th respondent was situated was taken over by the Central 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 only right was that they were
erstwhile employees of the 4th 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 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
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.
v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
336
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
/ 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 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 2nd respondent, let alone that of
employer - employee. It is submitted that therefore as there exists no
obligation on the 2nd respondent (KUDA) to allot plots of 200 Sq. Yards
each to the employees of the 4th respondent herein.
It is submitted that even being the statutory authority, the assets
of the 2nd 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 objective. It is submitted that justification of
G.O. No.463 in question was only with the development of the land
undertaken by the 2nd 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
337
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. 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.