https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311466 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. en-us Tue, 26 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Dec 2023 08:44:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311466 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311466