2019 Supreme(SC) 1114

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Limited – Petitioner(s)
Versus
P.P. Suresh & Ors, Etc. Etc. & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos.7804-7813 of 2019 Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 5550-5559 of 2016
WITH
Kerala State and Ors. Etc. Etc. – Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Managing Director Kerala State Beverages (M andM) Corporation Limited & Ors, Etc.Etc. & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos.7814-7832 of 2019 Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.33452-33470 of 2016
Kerala State and Ors. – Petitioner(s)
Versus
C.C. John & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No.7833 of 2019 Special Leave Petition (C) No.6757 of 2017
Kerala State – Petitioner(s)
Versus
N.I. Issac – Respondent (s)
Civil Appeal No. 7834 of 2019 Special Leave Petition (C) No.12573 of 2017
A N D
Babu M.K. – Petitioner (s)
Versus
The Managing Director Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Limited – Respondent (s)
Contempt Petition (C) No.638 of 2019 In Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.5550-5559 of 2016
Decided On : 04-10-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
If there is no assurance by Government, no vested right accrues in the persons concerned.
Legitimate expectation is not a legal right. Even an unequivocal and unambiguous promise made by an authority may change in subsequent circumstances like public interest or change in policy etc.
It is not required to give opportunity to each individual before withdrawing some assurance given to a large group of persons.
Administrative decisions can be interfered on the grounds of ‘illegality’, ‘irrationality’, ‘procedural impropriety’ and ‘proportionality’.
Impairment of the fundamental rights of individuals due to the change in policy cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate.

Headnote:

(a) Administration of justice - Vested right - Government deciding to adjust displaced abkari workers against 25% of the daily wage vacancies that would arise in the Corporation - No assurance of re-employment to all displaced abkari workers - No vetsed right of re-employment accruing in displaced abkari workers - Modification of Government Order dated 20.02.2002 by the Government Order dated 07.08.2004 cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. (Para 11, 12)

(b) Legitimate expectation - Not a legal right - In case of an unequivocal and unambiguous promise made by an authority, a person can claim that the authority in all fairness should not act contrary to the promise - Promise so made may change in subsequent circumstances like public interest or change in policy etc - Instantly change in policy forced due to difficulty in implementation of the Government order dated 20.02.2002 - Not unjustified. (Para 14, 16, 17, 19)

(c) Procedural legal expectation - Opportunity before withdrawing assurance - Not required to give opportunity to each individual. (Para 23)

(d) Administration of justice - Judicial Review - Administrative decisions can be interfered on the grounds of ‘illegality’, ‘irrationality’, ‘procedural impropriety’ and ‘proportionality’. (Para 24)

(e) Administration of justice - Judicial Review - Proportionality - Proportionality test is applied in as preliminary review in cases where a violation of Articles 19 and 21 is alleged - Secondary review is involved where violation of Article 14 is alleged - In primary review, the State can be asked to justify the policy and whether there was an imminent need for restricting the fundamental rights of the claimants - In secondary review, the Court shows deference to the decision of the executive - Proportionality involves ‘balancing test’ and ‘necessity test’. (Para 26, 27, 28)

(f) Administration of justice - Judicial review - Proportionality - Promise of Government to provide employment to displaced abkari workers becoming impossible due to unavailability of vacancies - Impairment of the fundamental rights of the Respondents due to the change in policy cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. (Para 32)

(g) Administration of justice - Judicial review - Writ petition seeking employment as per list of 265 dependent sons of the deceased displaced workers pursuant to the Order dated 07.08.2004 - High Court directing Government to appoint said persons - Government complying - Cannot be said that validity of Order dated 07.08.2004 has been finally decided. (Para 33)

Facts of the case:

Rehabilitation of Abkari workers is the core issue that arises in the Appeals above. Displaced workers who lost employment due to the ban of arrack in the State of Kerala, were successful in the Writ Petition filed by them. The Appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the Kerala State Beverages Corporation Limited were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court.

On 01.04.1996, arrack was banned in the State of Kerala. Consequentially, 12,500 arrack workers were deprived of their livelihood. Since it was not possible to provide re-employment to the displaced arrack workers, the State Government paid compensation of Rs. 30,000/-each to the arrack workers in lieu of rehabilitation. In addition, an exgratia of Rs.2000/-was also disbursed by the Government, apart from the provident fund pension and DCRG. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Government in not providing re-employment, the arrack workers launched an agitation demanding rehabilitation. Pursuant to an agreement between the arrack workers and the Government, G.O.(Rt) No.81/2002/TD dated 20.02.2002 was issued. The Government ordered that 25% of all daily wage employment vacancies which would arise in the Corporation in future shall stand reserved to be filled up by displaced workers who were members of the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board and whose services were terminated due to the ban of arrack.

The criteria for rehabilitation of arrack workers was altered by G.O.(Rt) No. 567/2004/TD dated 07.08.2004. Vide this Order, 25% of all daily wage employment vacancies likely to arise in the Corporation, were directed to be earmarked for the dependent sons of arrack workers who had not completed 38 years of age.

A list of 265 persons, who were the dependent sons of deceased arrack workers approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the State to provide employment to them. The High Court directed implementation of the Government Order dated 07.08.2004. G.O. (Rt.) No.399/09/TD was issued by the Government on 30.04.2009 implementing the direction issued in the Writ Petition (C) by appointing all 265 persons whose names were included in the list of dependent sons of deceased arrack workers. No relief was given to those workers who were jobless pursuant to the ban on arrack.

The legality and validity of the Government Orders dated 07.08.2004 and 22.06.2009 was challenged by the displaced arrack workers. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and directed the State Government to implement G.O.(Rt) No.81/2002/TD dated 20.02.2002.

The Division Bench upheld the judgment of the Single Judge by which the displaced arrack workers were directed to be provided employment in the Corporation.

Finding of the Court:

Finding of the High Court that a right of appointment accrued to the Respondents and it matured into a Right to Life as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution is erroneous. Order dated 07.08.2004 is not in continuation of the Order dated 20.02.2002.

Result: Appeals allowed.