The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government is bound to honor its promises made in the government orders, and the denial of employment to the abkari workers was unjustifiable.

These batch of writ petitions are filed by abkari workers who lost their employment due to the ban on arrack in the State as per GO (MS)No.285/95/TD dated 20/12/1995.

2. The Government, as a welfare measure to rehabilitate the abkari workers employed in arrack shops who lost their employment due to imposition of ban, issued G.O.(Rt).No.81/2002/TD dated 20/02/2002. By the aforesaid government order, the Government has decided that 25% of all the daily wage employment vacancies arising in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (for short, "BEVCO") in future will be filled by the abkari workers, registered with Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board, and who have been terminated from service due to arrack ban with effect from 01/04/1996. These writ petitions are essentially to implement the aforesaid government order.

3. There were series of litigations pertaining to rehabilitation of the abkari workers.

4. The Government issued another G.O. (Rt). No.567/2004/TD dated 07/08/2004 thereby modifying the earlier order, G.O. (Rt). No.81/2002/TD dated 20/02/2002 and decided to fix new criteria for rehabilitation of the abkari workers. The new criteria was that 25% of the daily wage employment vacancies arising in BEVCO should be earmarked for the dependent sons of the arrack workers, who had perished consequent on the loss of employment due to the ban on arrack.

5. The Government also amended the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (for short, the "Rules"). The Government brought the following amendment to Rule 4(2) of the aforesaid rules:-

"4(2). The shops so notified under sub-r. (1) above shall be such shops as are retained after abolition of certain existing shops. Grantees of privilege of such retained shops shall undertake to engage the existing workers and such eligible workers of the abolished shops who were registered with the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board as on 31-3-2000 and as are redeployed to their shops. Grantee of privilege shall also undertake to engage one Arrack worker of the abolished Arrack Shops of the State as would be allotted to his shop for rehabilitation, on the basis of district level seniority."

The amendment was also subject matter of challenge before this Court. Though this Court affirmed validity of the amendment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala [2006 (2) KLT 270 (SC)] held that Rule 4(2) of the aforesaid Rules is ultra vires.

6. The aforesaid rule, essentially, to engage one arrack worker of the abolished arrack shops of the State in the toddy shops by the grantees of privilege.

7. It is in the back drop of the above facts, the issue in these writ petitions has to be examined. It is to be noted that in all these writ petitions the subsequent G.O.(Rt).No.562/09/TD, dated 22/06/2009 is under challenge. This order happened to be passed consequent upon the direction of this Court in W.P.(C). No.26878/2007. By the aforesaid government order, the Government declined to implement the original order on rehabilitation of displaced Abkari workers in Toddy Shops.

8. One of the reasons stated in the impugned government order, G.O.(Rt).No.562/09/TD, dated 22/06/2009 is as follows:

"2. ...........Though there was a decision to reserve 25% of the daily wage employment vacancies arising in the KSBC to be filled up by the said Abkari workers, the same could not be implemented due to a variety of practical difficulties such as want of sufficient number of vacancies fixing of a suitable criteria to accommodate them, etc. Accordingly, it was decided as per Ext.P2 order (G.O. read as second paper above) to limit the reservation of 25% of the daily wage employment vacancies in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, for the appointment of dependent sons of arrack workers who had perished consequent to the loss of employment due to the ban of arrack in the State."

Another reason stated therein was that in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S