KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORPORATION LIMITED versus P.P. SURESH & ORS, ETC. ETC. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 164 · Decided: 04-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M)
CORPORATION LIMITED
v.
P.P. SURESH & ORS, ETC. ETC. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos.7804-7813 of 2019)
OCTOBER 04, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Administrative Law:
Policy decision – Rehabilitation of displaced workers – On
facts, ban on sale of arrack in the State – Arrack workers deprived
of their livelihood – Government did not give re-employment –
Workers then sought rehabilitation – Issuance of Government order
to provide employment to displaced abkari workers, adjusting them
against 25% of the daily wage vacancies that would arise in the
Corporation – Thereafter, alteration in the criteria for rehabilitation
of arrack workers and issuance of Government order directing to
earmark the vacancies for dependent sons of arrack workers who
perished consequent to loss of employment – Arrack workers filed
writ petition seeking implementation of the first government order
– Single Judge of the High Court directed the State Government
to implement the first government order – Division Bench upheld
the order – On appeal, held: There was no assurance given to all
the displaced abkari workers that they would be re-employed –
Assurance given by the Government was to reserve 25% of daily
wage vacancies that would arise in future for the displaced abkari
workers – Thus, no vested right accrued to all the abkari workers
to claim employment – Further, it came to the notice of the
Government that several displaced abkari workers perished after
1996 and their families had to be provided immediate succor, as a
result the Government modified the policy decision due to
administrative exigencies – Said decision cannot be termed as
unreasonable or arbitrary as it was taken in light of overriding
public interest and has to be given due weight – Thus, the
expectation of the respondents for consideration against the
25 % of the future vacancies in daily wage workers in the
Corporation is not legitimate – Promise held out by the Government
164
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 164
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
165
to provide employment to the displaced Abkari workers had become
an impossible task in view of the non-availability of vacancies in
the Corporation – Impairment of the fundamental rights of the
respondents due to the change in policy cannot be said to be
excessive – Change in policy is not disproportionate – Thus, the
order passed by the High Court set aside.
Legitimate Expectation – Principle of substantive legitimate
expectation – Principle of procedural legitimate expectation –
Application of – Stated.
Administrative Decision – Review of – Application of test of
proportionality – Stated.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Government took a decision to provide
employment to displaced abkari workers, adjusting them against
25% of the daily wage vacancies that would arise in the
Corporation. There was no assurance given to all the displaced
abkari workers that they would be re-employed. The assurance
given by the Government was to reserve 25% of daily wage
vacancies that would arise in future for the displaced abkari
workers. It cannot be said that a vested right accrued to all the
abkari workers to claim employment in retail outlets in the
Corporation. It cannot be said that a vested right was created
by the Government Order dated 20.02.2002 and that it was
indefeasible. There was no unequivocal promise that all the
displaced workers would be provided re-employment. [Para 11]
[176-B-D]
1.2 The assurance given to the abkari workers that they
would be considered for employment in 25% of the daily wage
vacancies that would arise in the Corporation, according to the
Government, had to be altered due to administrative exigencies.
The implementation of the decision to provide employment to
displaced abkari workers was not possible in view of the fact
that the number of vacancies of daily wage employees after the
year 2002 were very less whereas there was a large number of
displaced abkari workers to be accommodated. In view of the
difficulties faced by the Government in implementation of the
Government Order dated 20.02.2002, the Government found it
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORPORATION
LTD. v. P.P. SURESH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
fit to modify the policy decision by a Government Order dated
07.08.2004. It came to the notice of the Government that several
displaced abkari workers perished after 1996. Their

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.