Article 14 parity in State allotment: unequal plot distribution to similarly placed ex-employees was struck down and mandamus upheld.

Remaining ex-employees of a closed mill were entitled to parity in allotment of developed plots because they were similarly situated to other ex-employees who had already received the benefit. The Court held that differential treatment based on unauthorised occupation could not be justified under Article 14, as rewarding non-compliance while denying relief to compliant employees lacked a rational basis and did not form part of the original governmental objective. It further recognised that mandamus under Article 226 was maintainable to enforce equality in the grant of State largesse against State instrumentalities. The earlier direction extending the same allotment benefit was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the remaining ex-employees of the closed mill could claim parity and seek allotment of developed plots on the same footing as the other ex-employees who had been granted such plots; (ii) whether the differential treatment between the two groups was justified under Article 14 of the Constitution; (iii) whether a writ of mandamus could be issued in exercise of Article 226 to direct allotment of plots.

Issue (i): Whether the remaining ex-employees of the closed mill could claim parity and seek allotment of developed plots on the same footing as the other ex-employees who had been granted such plots.

Analysis: Both groups were employees of the same mill, had taken voluntary retirement under the same scheme, and had been allotted quarters. The only material distinction was that one group vacated the quarters in obedience to the notice, while the other remained in unauthorised occupation. The earlier allotment to the latter group was made as a rehabilitation and welfare measure. The remaining employees therefore stood similarly placed for the purpose of parity.

Conclusion: The remaining ex-employees were entitled to be treated at par with the employees already allotted plots.

Issue (ii): Whether the differential treatment between the two groups was justified under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: A valid classification under Article 14 must rest on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The justification sought to be introduced later, namely avoidance of litigation cost, did not form part of the original governmental basis for allotment. Granting the benefit only to those in unauthorised occupation would amount to rewarding illegality and penalising compliance with the eviction notice. No rational basis existed for denying the same benefit to the remaining employees.

Conclusion: The differential treatment violated Article 14 and could not be sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued in exercise of Article 226 to direct allotment of plots.

Analysis: The right asserted was the enforceable constitutional right to equality, and the respondents were State instrumentalities amenable to writ jurisdiction. Once the Court found unjustified discrimination in the distribution of State largesse, the absence of a contractual privity did not defeat relief. The case was fit for issuance of a writ to enforce parity in the grant already extended to similarly situated persons.

Conclusion: A writ of mandamus was maintainable and could validly be issued.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the earlier direction to extend the same allotment benefit to the remaining ex-employees was restored, with liberty to consider allotment from additional or remaining land in public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a State instrumentality grants a welfare benefit to one group of similarly situated persons, denial of the same benefit to another equally situated group without a rational and contemporaneous basis violates Article 14 and can be corrected by mandamus under Article 226.

---