1. Employment scheme for landless families providing 100 days of work per year on a rotational basis. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1991 Supreme(SC) 548
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranganath Misra, CJI., Kuldip Singh, S.Mohan, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan
Versus
Shankar Lal Kunda Ram Banwarilal
Case No., 1092 , 1091 , 1093 of 1990
Date of Decision, 10/9/91
The court upheld a social welfare scheme providing limited employment to landless families, ruling that such schemes should be guided by the principle of providing the greatest good for the greatest number to ensure basic sustenance for the unemployed.
Headnote:(A) Employment Scheme - Social Welfare - Provision of employment to landless families - Scheme providing 100 days of employment per year to one member of every landless family to ensure sustenance - Philosophy of the scheme is to provide work to as many unemployed people as possible by rotating employment - The principle of the good of the greatest number is central to such welfare schemes. (Paras 2 and 3)
Facts of the case:
The State Government introduced a special scheme to provide employment for 100 days a year to at least one member of every landless family not already provided work. The arrangement intended that after the 100-day period, employment would be provided to another similarly situated person to maximize the number of unemployed people covered by the scheme.
Findings of Court:
The scheme is based on the philosophy that those with no employment should have a provision for at least 100 days to provide sustenance for the remaining period of the year. The lower court failed to consider the basic aspect of the good of the greatest number.
Issues: Whether the scheme providing limited employment to rotate among landless families is valid and whether the lower court's decision interfering with the scheme was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: Welfare schemes designed for the unemployed should be interpreted through the lens of providing the greatest good for the greatest number, ensuring basic sustenance for the most marginalized.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The scheme aims to provide sustenance to the unemployed, prioritizing the welfare of the greatest number of people. (Para 3 )
3. Welfare schemes for the unemployed should be interpreted to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. (Para 3 )
4. Appeals allowed; High Court decision vacated and employment scheme restored, limiting respondents to the 100-day employment benefit. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. What is the underlying philosophy of a state employment scheme for landless families?
The philosophy is to provide sustenance for those with no employment by ensuring at least 100 days of work per year, prioritizing the good of the greatest number. (Para 3 )
6. Are respondents entitled to relief beyond the specific benefits of a state employment scheme?
No, respondents are not entitled to any relief other than the specific benefit of employment for 100 days in a year as envisaged in the scheme. (Para 3 )
7. Can a court restore a welfare scheme if a lower court overlooks its basic social objective?
Yes, if the lower court loses sight of the basic aspect of the scheme—providing the greatest good for the greatest number—the decision can be vacated to restore the scheme's operation. (Para 3 )
(1) SPECIAL leave granted in fresh matters.
(2) IN the State of Rajasthan, the government introduced a special scheme known by three separate names for providing employment to at least one member of every landless family not already provided work to make provision of work for 100 days in a year and the scheme conceived of the arrangement that after 100 days of employment was over, some- one else similarly situated would be provided employment so that the scheme would be running and available to provide employment to as many unemployed people in the State as it could cover.
(3) WE are of the view that the scheme has a philosophy behind it and the basic aspect is that those who have no employment at all would have provision of employment for at least 100 days and the basic 100 days employment would provide them sustenance for the remaining period during which they have no employment. Good of the greatest number seems to be the basic aspect which has been lost sight of by the High Court. We vacate the decision of the High court and restore the scheme to operate. The respondents would not be entitled to any other, relief excepting the benefit envisaged in the scheme of employment for 100 days in a year.
(4) THE appeals are allowed. There will he no order for costs.
