MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOCIATIONNATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.versusNATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.

                         [2021] 11 S.C.R. 321                            321


MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OF                          A
      AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOCIATION
                                  v.
   NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 6260-61 of 2021)                      B
                         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   C
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
                                                                         D
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        E
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,
                                                                         F
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          G
plots to 134 ex-employees to avoid undue hardship to the ex-
employees 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
                                                                         H
                                 321
322            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C            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
D     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
E     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
F     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     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
H
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                  323
                      v. NTC LTD.

134 ex-employees, also to allot to them 200 Sq. Yards of house         A
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     B
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           C
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               D
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      E
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         F
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       G
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

                                                                       H
324           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     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-

H
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                    325
                      v. NTC LTD.

employees and that to determine the intelligible differentia an          A
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
                                                                         B
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               C
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
                                                                         D
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               E
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.
                                                                         F
[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      G
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
                                                                         H
326            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     vacated the quarters and stayed elsewhere were settled. It cannot
      be presumed like that without any factual data. There may be
      many ex-employees who were compelled to vacate the quarters
      and who might not have settled or might be staying in a one room
      house. In any case, to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-
D     employees to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as
      a welfare measure and as a rehabilitation and not other ex-
      employees 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 /
E     litigation cost would be giving a premium to those who continued
      to be in illegal unauthorized occupation and to punish those ex-
      employees who were found to be law abiding and vacated the
      quarters pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. Even the
      justification to differentiate the case between two classes of ex-
F     employees is not germane. If remaining 318 ex-employees would
      not have vacated the quarters and would have remained in
      unauthorized occupation, even as per the case on behalf of the
      respondents is accepted, then those who remained in unauthorized
      occupation subsequently might have been allotted to 200 Sq. Yards
      of plots free of cost like 134 ex-employees who were found to be
G     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]
H
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                327
                      v. NTC LTD.

       1.8 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High        A
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
                                                                     B
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             C
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               D
     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.           E
     & 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                 F
     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        G
[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        H
328              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     [1959] SCR 279                   distinguished             Para 9.5
      (2019) 19 SCC 626                distinguished             Para 9.6
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6260-
      6261 of 2021.
B            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.
C          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
D
               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
E     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,
F     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:
G           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
H     period of service, all the workers / employees working in the Mill were
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                          329
              v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

allotted Employees’ Quarters constructed and owned by the Mill. That,          A
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
                                                                               B
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            C
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
                                                                               D
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          E
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
                                                                               F
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   G
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           H
330            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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,
C     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
D
      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
E     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
F     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
G
      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
H
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                         331
              v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of        A
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            B
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   C
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         D
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/      E
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        F
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.       G
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.                                                     H
332             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A           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
B     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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     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
H
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                          333
              v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 (Paras 11 and 12) and in the              A
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       B
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.                            C

     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.                       D
       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.                          E
       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           F
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       G
be compared with those who continued to be in occupation and possession
of the quarters. It is submitted that therefore the remaining 318 ex-
employees cannot be said to be at par 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
                                                                               H
334             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     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.
B            5.3 It is further submitted by Mr. Giri, learned Counsel appearing
      on behalf of the KUDA that as such there was no privity of contract
      and/or any relationship with/between the KUDA / State and the ex-
      employees / workmen of the Mill. It is submitted that therefore the KUDA
      was not obliged to allot the plots to ex-workmen free of cost. It is submitted
      that therefore as such there was no vested right in favour of the ex-
C     workmen / employees of the Mill to get 200 Sq. Yards plots free of cost
      from KUDA.
             5.4 It is submitted that as 134 ex-workmen / employees were
      found to be in possession and occupation of the quarters and therefore,
      it was found that without evicting them and/or removing them and/or
D     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
E     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
F     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.
G
             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
H     respondents to allot the land to an extent of 200 Sq. Yards to each member
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                            335
              v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

of the Workers Association. It is submitted that it is trite law that a writ     A
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
                                                                                 B
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          C
that under the said Government Order the State of Andhra Pradesh
granted approval to KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards of land to 134 ex-
employees 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,           D
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               E
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         F
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              G
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       H
336             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     / 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.
B            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
C     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
D     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
E     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.
F
             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     G.O. No.463 in question was only with the development of the land
      undertaken by the 2 nd 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
H     134 persons.
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                           337
              v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

        5.10 It is further submitted by Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate    A
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
                                                                                B
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           C
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. Anup Kumar Senapati, (2019) 19 SCC 626, two
wrongs do not make a right and there is no concept of negative equality         D
contained in Article 14 of the Constitution.
     Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
Appeals
       6. The present Appeals are also opposed by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,
learned ASG appearing on behalf of the NTC as well as the Union of              E
India. It is submitted by Ms. Bhati that as such in the process of
implementation of Revival Scheme approved by BIFR, the entire land
admeasuring Acres 201.02 Cents belonging to the Mill was put to sale
by the Asset Sale Committee constituted by the Government of India
and on 23.01.2004, the sale was approved. It is submitted that accordingly      F
land admeasuring Acres 65.69 Cents was sold to Andhra Pradesh Housing
Board and Acres 135.33 Cents to KUDA. It is submitted that thereafter
the Committee was dissolved vide BIFR Order dated 20.08.2014. It is
submitted that as per Section 3 of the Sick Textile Undertakings
(Nationalization) Act, 1974, the right, title and interest of Azam Jahi Mills
shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the Central             G
Government. It is submitted that the NTC and the Mills thereafter are
only the custodian of the Azam Jahi Mills and its properties on behalf of
the Central Government who is the absolute owner.
      6.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhati that out of the total Acres
135.33 Cents sold to KUDA, only Acres 117.20 Cents was available for            H
338             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     registration as Acres 14.88 Cents was under encroachment. It is
      submitted that as such as on date, around 5 Acres of land only is in the
      possession of the Mill as a custodian on behalf of the Central Government
      who is the absolute owner of the said properties. It is submitted that as
      such as per the OM No.8(18)/2020-E-II(A) dated 28.03.2011 of the
      Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance (Government of India),
B
      a specific approval of the Union Cabinet is required by all the Ministries
      with regard to transfer or alienation of land held by the Government or
      Government controlled statutory authorities.
             6.2 It is submitted that after the sale was concluded between the
      NTC and KUDA, the Vice Chairman of KUDA requested the
C     Government of Andhra Pradesh for permission / sanction for allotment
      of 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots to 134 ex-workers of the Mills who
      had encroached the subject land and were not vacating the said land. It
      is submitted that based on the request of Vice Chairman, KUDA,
      Government permitted KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards to each of the 134
D     erstwhile workers of the Mills. It is submitted that as such 200 Sq. Yards
      of the plots were neither allotted by the NTC / Mill / Central Government
      nor they were party to the arrangement between 134 erstwhile employees
      of the KUDA. It is submitted that therefore the appellant cannot seek
      allotment of land from the NTC / Mills / Central Government.
E             6.3 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhati, learned ASG that in fact
      all the ex-employees of the Mill accepted the voluntary retirement under
      the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 and they were paid
      all the benefits accrued under the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme
      of 2002 in the year 2002 itself. It is submitted that therefore on and after
      the ex-employees of the Mills took voluntary retirement and after the
F     Mill came to be closed after obtaining appropriate closure order from
      the Ministry, thereafter there is no relationship continued between the
      employees / ex-employees and the NTC / Central Government / Mills.
      It is submitted that therefore the appellants are not entitled to any relief
      against the Central Government / NTC / Mills.
G             6.4 It is further submitted that the allotment of plots free of cost
      was never the part of Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002.
      It is submitted that all the erstwhile employees who opted for voluntary
      retirement under the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002
      were completely aware of the benefits that would be offered by way of
H     golden handshake, which did not include allotment of plots free of cost.
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                          339
              v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

        6.5 It is further submitted that as 200 Sq. Yards plots came to be     A
allotted to 134 ex-employees to avoid the cost of litigation, there is no
question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as alleged.
It is submitted that in any case the Central Government / NTC / Mills
had nothing to do with the decision taken by the KUDA. It is submitted
that therefore the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly allowed
                                                                               B
the appeal preferred by the NTC and has rightly quashed and set aside
the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and has
rightly consequentially dismissed the writ petition.
       7. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at
length.
                                                                               C
       7.1 The appellant Workers Association for and on behalf of 318
ex-employees of the respondent No.4 – Mills approached the High Court
by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and prayed to allot them 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost at par with
other 134 employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills.
                                                                               D
        It was the specific case on behalf of 318 ex-employees of the
erstwhile respondent No.4 that they are similarly situated with 134 ex-
employees of erstwhile respondent No.4 inasmuch as both the classes
(one class consisting of 318 employees and another class consisting of
134 employees) are similarly situated; the employees belonging to both
the classes were the employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills;         E
that all of them took the voluntary retirement under the Modified Voluntary
Retirement Scheme of 2002 together; all were similarly situated in granting
the benefit of the modified voluntary scheme; all were allotted the quarters
and were residing in the quarters. It was the case on behalf of the
employees that the only difference was that as law abiding persons,            F
they vacated the quarters after they were served with the notice dated
17.07.1986 to vacate the quarters and that those 134 ex-employees who
as such were similarly situated did not vacate the quarters despite the
notice dated 17.07.1986 and they remained in unauthorized occupation.
It was also the case on behalf of 318 ex-employees that as per the G.O.
No.463, all those 134 ex-employees were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots        G
free of cost to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare
measure. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed
the respondents to treat all those 318 ex-employees at par with 134 ex-
employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost and to
allot them accordingly by observing that not allotting similar 200 Sq.         H
340               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     Yards of plots free of cost to remaining employees – 318 ex-employees
      is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The
      Division Bench of the High Court quashed and set aside the judgment
      and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present Appeals.
             8. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective
B     parties, the short question which is posed for consideration of this Court
      is, whether the remaining 318 ex-employees of the respondent No.4
      Mills (erstwhile) can claim the parity and equality vis-a-vis other similarly
      situated 134 ex-employees of the respondent No.4 Mills (erstwhile) and
      can claim 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost? The incidental questions
      which are posed for consideration of this Court as argued and suggested
C     by the learned Counsel for the respective parties would be as follows:
            (1)     Whether the writ petition preferred by the appellant
                    Association before the High Court under Article 226 of the
                    Constitution of India for the relief sought was maintainable?

D           (2)     Whether was there any legal right available to the appellant
                    Association for the relief sought in the writ petition i.e. for
                    allotment of 200 Sq. Yards plots of land?
            (3)     Does Article 14 of the Constitution have any application in
                    the present case?
E           (4)     Whether to determine the intelligible differentia the affidavit
                    filed on behalf of the concerned respondents can be looked
                    into and/or relied upon?
            (5)     Whether any relief can be claimed against KUDA and/or
                    against the NTC / respondent No.4 Mills?
F            9. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective
      parties at length on the aforesaid issues.
             At the outset it is required to be noted that 318 ex-employees of
      the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills prayed for equality and claimed the
      reliefs at par with other similarly situated 134 ex-employees of the
G     erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of
      plots free of cost.
             9.1 It is to be noted and it cannot be disputed that even at one
      point of time as admitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
      KUDA that 318 ex-employees who were not allotted 200 Sq. Yards of
H     plots are as such similarly situated to those 134 ex-employees of the
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                         341
              v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plot       A
free of cost pursuant to the approval vide G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007.
All of them as such were working with the respondent No.4. All of them
were ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. All of them
were residing in the quarters allotted by the Mills. All of them took
voluntary retirement under the Modified Voluntary Scheme in the year
                                                                              B
2002. All of them got the benefits under the Modified Voluntary
Retirement Scheme of 2002 and all of them were relieved on and from
31.08.2002. However, 318 ex-employees vacated their quarters from
time to time pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. Thus, they abided
the notice dated 17.07.1986. However, despite the notice dated 17.07.1986
and even after they were relieved on and from 31.08.2002, 134 ex-             C
employees continued to retain the quarters and they were in unauthorized
occupation of the quarters. Therefore, the only difference between 134
ex-employees and 318 ex-employees was that 318 ex-employees were
law abiding persons who vacated the quarters pursuant to the notice
dated 17.07.1986 and 134 ex-employees remained in unauthorized
                                                                              D
occupation of the quarters.
        At this stage it is required to be noted that at the time when the
proceedings for closure of respondent No.4 Mill was held before the
Ministry of Labour, a request was made to allot the quarters to the
concerned workmen at reasonable rates and in the order granting approval
for closure, it was submitted on behalf of the Mills that the request to      E
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         F
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           G
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          H
342            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     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 134 ex-employees, also to
      allot to them 200 Sq. Yards of house plots, their request came to be
      turned down. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the
B
      observations made hereinabove, it is found that 318 ex-employees were
      not allotted the 200 Sq. Yards of plots and 134 ex-employees who were
      allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost who as such were similarly
      situated and as such there is no difference between them at all. On the
      contrary, 318 ex-employees can be said to be law abiding ex-employees
C     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
D
      plots to those employees who were found to be in unauthorized occupation
      would tantamount to giving a premium to their illegality and remaining in
      occupation and possession of the quarters illegally and unauthorizedly.
      As observed hereinabove, as both the classes of employees are found to
      be similarly situated except the difference as observed hereinabove, 318
E     ex-employees who as such were similarly situated with those 134 ex-
      employees when claimed the equality and parity, as such the learned
      Single Judge rightly issued the writ of mandamus and directed the
      respondents to treat all of them at par and allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots
      to remaining 318 ex-employees also as per the G.O. No.463.
F            9.2 The submission on behalf of the respondents more particularly
      learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the appellant
      Association – 318 ex-employees have no legal right and that respondent
      Nos.2 and 3 have no legal duty has no substance and cannot be accepted.
      Right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India
      is vested right in favour of the person who claims equality and parity and
G     the same is enforceable against State / State instrumentalities in exercise
      of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find no
      justification at all in treating 318 ex-employees different from those 134
      ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. We
      find that as such the equals are treated unequally and therefore, when
H     the equals are treated unequally, there is a violation of Article 14 of the
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                           343
              v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Constitution and therefore, the appellants were entitled to the relief sought   A
even in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
       9.3 The concept of equality before the law and equal protection
of the laws emerges from the fundamental right expressed in Article 14
of the Constitution. Equality is a definite concept.
       The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the      B
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          C
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   D
from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be
achieved. In the present case allotment of 200 Sq.Yards free of cost to
134 employees wasto avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as
a welfare measure. As observed hereinabove those 318 ex-employees
who are denied the benefit of allotment of 200 Sq.Yards of plots free of
cost are similarly placed persons with that of 134 employees who are            E
allotted 200 Sq.Yards plots free of cost. There is no rationale justification
in providing differential treatment to one class of ex-employees similarly
placed with another class of ex-employees who are allotted the plots.
        9.4 Now, so far as the case on behalf of KUDA now before this
Court in the form of counter affidavit that to avoid any litigation and         F
litigation cost and to get vacant possession of the remaining land, it was
proposed and decided to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134
ex-employees who were found to be in occupation and possession of
the quarters and therefore, there was a valid reason to allot 200 Sq.
Yards of plots to 134 ex-employees and the reliance placed on the decision
                                                                                G
in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia (Supra) that to determine the
intelligible differentia an affidavit produced before this Court can be
considered and/or referred to is concerned, the aforesaid seems to be
attractive but has no substance in the facts and circumstances of the
case. It is to 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           H
344             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees, there was no
      reference at all that to avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost it was
      proposed to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. As observed
      hereinabove and even when the G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007 is seen,
      it is found in the letter dated 28.12.2006 that “to avoid undue hardship to
      the ex-employees and as a welfare measure”. Even in paragraph 4 of
B
      the G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007, the State Government has specifically
      observed that after careful consideration of the matter, “as a rehabilitation
      and a welfare measure”, Government has agreed to the proposal of the
      Vice Chairman, KUDA and permit them to allot 200 Sq. Yards of
      developed plots free of cost to each 134 ex-employees of the erstwhile
C     respondent No.4 Mills. Therefore, the allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of
      plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees was as a rehabilitation and welfare
      measure of ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills. Even
      before the learned Single Judge also, it was not the case pleaded before
      the High Court that those 134 persons were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of
      plots free of cost to avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost which is
D
      now pleaded for the first time before this Court. The case on behalf of
      the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been dealt with by the learned Single
      Judge in paragraph 5 which reads as under:
            “5. The averments in the counter affidavit of the 3 rd
            respondent to the extent relevant, in brief, are as follows:
E
            The President of the petitioner association in his personal
            capacity along with four others had filed a court case before
            the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal and it is posted
            to 03.03.2008 for hearing. Hence, the writ petition is not
            maintainable. The members of the petitioner association had
F
            voluntarily retired from the services of the mill under modified
            VRS 2002. Their accounts were settled by the NTC long time
            back. Hence, the request for allotment of house sites to the
            members of the petitioner association on par with (134) other
            employees does not arise for consideration. In fact, the 3rd
G           respondent KUDA had taken over possession of (134)
            quarters covered in an area of Ac.117.00 guntas of land. The
            allotment of plots to the (134) workers, who were staying in
            the quarters, was considered as a measure of rehabilitation
            and welfare by the Government as well as KUDA. There is no
            illegality or irregularity in the matter. KUDA had submitted
H
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                     345
              v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

    proposals to the Government for allotment of plots to (134)           A
    workers only, as they were still continuing to stay in the
    quarters at the time of taking over physical possession of the
    land by KUDA from NTC. The Government had issued orders
    for allotment of plots to those (134) employees who were by
    then staying in the quarters. This respondent cannot allot plots
                                                                          B
    to the members of the petitioner association as per the
    Government Orders referred to in the writ petition. This
    respondent received representation dated 15.09.2007.
    However, it is not considered as the case of the members of
    the petitioner association does not stand on the same footing
    as that of the (134) former employees, who had continued to           C
    stay in the existing quarters, and as the allotment of sites was
    made to them as per the Government orders. The members of
    the petitioner association who had voluntarily retired under
    a modified voluntary scheme had vacated the quarters and
    had left the place already. At the time of taking over possession
                                                                          D
    by the KUDA, (134) ex-workers only were staying in the
    quarters. The proposal for allotment of house plots of 200
    square yards each was agreed upon by the respondents 2
    and 3. Such similar benefit cannot be extended to the retired
    employees other than (134) ex-workers as per the principle
    of the decision taken in this regard by this respondent and           E
    the Government. This respondent has purchased the land from
    the NTC and had specifically agreed for allotment of house
    sites to those ex-employees only who were still staying in the
    quarters by that time. This respondent and the Government
    did not agree for allotment of sites to the members of the
                                                                          F
    petitioner association. This respondent had taken up sites and
    services scheme and had incurred a lot of expenditure on
    infrastructure facilities like provision of roads, water supply,
    drainage, electricity, parks development etc. and disposing
    the plots in public open auction. In view of the financial
    position of the third respondent, it is not possible to allot plots   G
    to any other retired employees, under any circumstances. The
    members of the petitioner association vacated the quarters
    long time back and are residing elsewhere and they were not
    staying in the mill quarters at the time of the proposal of the
    scheme for purchase of land by this respondent from the 1st
                                                                          H
346             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A            respondent and therefore, the members of the petitioner
             association are not eligible for allotment of any house sites
             on par with the other (134) workers. The project was taken
             up on “as is where is” and “as is what is” basis. The members
             of the petitioner association have no right to demand plots
             and this respondent has no liability to allot plots to the members
B
             of the petitioner association as per the project deal. The
             members of the petitioner association cannot re-enter the
             picture and seek allotment of house sites. As per the
             Government Order, the Project has to be finalized to raise
             funds for City infrastructure development and therefore, this
C            respondent was obliged to raise funds through the sale
             proceeds by selling plots. Even if any of the land is available,
             it is for the development of KUDA and city and not reserved
             for allotment to the petitioners on free of cost on par with
             (134) members. There is no scope for sparing the land of this
             respondent to the members of the petitioner association.
D
             Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.”
             9.5 From the above and even from the grounds of appeal before
      the Division Bench, respondents tried to justify their action by submitting
      that case of 318 ex-employees is not comparable with those of 134 ex-
      employees as 318 ex-employees vacated the quarters and they were
E     not in possession and that only 134 ex-employees remained in possession
      of the quarters. For the first time before this Court, in the counter
      affidavit, it is now the case on behalf of the respondent KUDA and
      others that to avoid any litigation and/or litigation cost, it was proposed to
      allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. The respondents therefore
F     cannot be permitted to improve their case which was not even their
      case earlier viz. at the time when they made a proposal to permit them
      to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to 134 ex-employees and even
      it was not the case so stated in the G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007 and
      even it was not the case before the High Court. Therefore, the
      respondents more particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be
G     permitted to improve their case by filing the affidavit before this Court
      for the first time. Therefore, the decision of this Court in the case of Shri
      Ram Krishna Dalmia (Supra), which has been relied upon by the learned
      Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, shall not be applicable
      to the facts of the case on hand. Even otherwise on going through the
H     entire decision of this Court in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                         347
              v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

(Supra), we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be of any     A
assistance to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. It was the case with respect
to the classification and the Union Government tried to justify the basis
of classification by way of affidavit and it was the case on behalf of the
writ petitioners that the basis of classification must appear on the face
of the notification itself and reference cannot be made to any extraneous
                                                                              B
matter and to that it is observed and held that there can be no objection
to the matters brought to the notice of the Court by way of affidavit
being taken into consideration alongwith the matters specified in the
notification in order to ascertain whether there was any valid basis for
treating the appellants and/or their companies as a class by themselves.
We fail to appreciate as to how the said decision shall be applicable to      C
the facts of the case on hand.
       9.6 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Anup
Kumar Senapati (Supra) that there is no concept of negative equality
under Article 14 of the Constitution and the submission that merely           D
because there was any mistake on the part of the respondents in allotting
200 Sq. Yards of land to the said 138 persons and therefore, the appellants
cannot claim the parity is concerned, again the same has no substance.
At the outset it is required to be noted that it was/is never the case on
behalf of the respondents that those 134 persons were allotted the plots
                                                                              E
by mistake and/or there was any wrong committed in allotting 200 Sq.
Yards of plot to the said 134 persons. Therefore, there is no question of
applicability of any negative equality. Therefore, the aforesaid decision
shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
       9.7 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondents
                                                                              F
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         G
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
                                                                              H
348             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     any case, to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-employees to avoid
      undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure and as a
      rehabilitation to only 134 case ex-employees and not other ex-employees
      similarly situated, would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of
      the Constitution. As observed hereinabove, on the contrary, to allot the
      plots to 134 employees on the ground that they were in unauthorized
B
      occupation and therefore, to avoid the litigation / litigation cost would be
      giving a premium to those who continued to be in illegal unauthorized
      occupation and to punish those ex-employees who were found to be law
      abiding and vacated the quarters pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986.
      Even the justification to differentiate the case between two classes of
C     ex-employees is not germane. If remaining 318 ex-employees would not
      have vacated the quarters and would have remained in unauthorized
      occupation, even as per the case on behalf of the respondents is accepted,
      then those who remained in unauthorized occupation subsequently might
      have been allotted to 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost like 134 ex-
      employees who were found to be in unauthorized occupation. Therefore,
D
      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. It will
      be open for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to approach the respondent
      No.1 and/or the State Government for allotment of additional land and/
E     or to allot the plots from the remaining land of the respondent No.4 Mills
      which might be vacant and available with the Central Government /
      NTC as the case may be.
             10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both
      these Appeals succeed. Impugned judgment and order dated 19.02.2020
F     passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad in
      Writ Appeal Nos.427 of 2016 and 431 of 2016 are hereby quashed and
      set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
      in Writ Petition No.26642 of 2007 is hereby restored and the respondents
      more particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to treat
      and consider the remaining 318 ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent
G     No.4 – Azam Jahi Mills at par with other 134 ex-employees who were
      allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost as per the Government Order
      No.463 dated 27.06.2007. However, it is observed that it will be open
      for KUDA to approach the State Government and/or the respondent
      Nos.1 and 4 / the Central Government to allot additional plot / land, may
H     be out of the remaining land available with the Central Government /
MODIFIED VRS OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOC.                       349
              v. NTC LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

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


Nidhi Jain                                               Appeals allowed.


                                                                            C




                                                                            D




                                                                            E




                                                                            F




                                                                            G




                                                                            H