P.Balakrishnan v. 1.Small Industrial Development, Corporation Limited

W.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018G.O.Ms.No.128, Housing and Urban Development (S.C.3 Department), dated 24.03.1997. (Prayer amended, vide Court order, dated 20.03.2025 in WMP(MD).23414 of 2024 in WP(MD)No.24778 of 2018) For Petitioner : M/s.K.Muthumalai For Respondents : Mr.T.Sathi Kumaran *****ORDERThe present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned notices in Na.Ka.No.452/A2/2014 dated 22.03.208 and Na.Ka.No.535/A2/2014 dated 22.03.208 of 1st respondent and consequently register the sale deed by accepting the sale consideration. Pending writ petition the petitioner had amended the prayer which is for issuing writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned notices in R.C.No.725/A2/2019 dated 15.10.2019 and R.C.No.725/A2/2019 dated 04.11.2019 issued by 1st respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to execute the sale deed for the Labour Tenement 29(N) for the sale consideration of Rs.9,600/- as per G.O.Ms.No.128 Housing and Urban Development (S.C.3 Department) dated 24.03.1997. 2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 20182.1. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit is that the petitioner joined the service on 12.04.1984 as Watchman in Raw Material Depot, SIDCO, Madurai. Later, he became permanent staff and worked as Watchmen in 1st respondent's office and attained superannuation on 30.06.2018 AN, as special Grade Watchman. The 2nd respondent through his Proceedings No. 3132/B-1/2018-1 dated 28.06.2018 permitted the petitioner to retire from service on 30.06.2018.2.2 To the employees working under 1st respondent, labour tenements were allotted for residential occupation of the workers, accordingly Labour Tenement No. 29(N) was allotted to the petitioner for his residential occupation by the 2nd respondent through his proceedings No. R.C.No.8352/Y3/98 dated 10.01.2001. Complying the same, the 1st respondent in his proceedings in R.C.No. 743/A3/98 dated 25.01.2001 directed the petitioner to execute agreement for LT No. 29(N) and the complied the said direction and Labour Tenement was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner took possession in 2001 and the rent fixed was deducted regularly. 2.3 Then the Government took a policy decision and decided to sell the labour tenements allotted to the workers. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.128 3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018Housing and Urban Development (S.C. 3 Department) dated 24.03.1997 was passed wherein it is stated on receiving Rs.9,600/- from the allottees, the labour tenements shall be sold to the allottees as outright sale. Based on this, several members were asked to pay Rs.9,600/- as sale price and granted the same. 2.4 The contention of the petitioner is that the said G.O. is conferring the right to certain persons in 1997 itself, the petitioner being similarly placed person, he is entitled to the same benefits since the petitioner is an authorized employee and regular employee. Further, the right to purchase the same become vested with petitioner, and already granted right cannot be denied and it is the duty of the respondents to sell the said 29(N) Labour tenement to the petitioner. Any denial would be violation of the Article 14 of the constitution of India. In the circular in the R.C.16962/D5/2000 dated 08.02.2001 of the 2nd respondent, the retired employees and even their legal heirs of the authorized employees can also purchase the labour tenement which they occupied under allotment. Hence this circular makes it clear that right vested already as per the G.O. 128 dated 24.03.1997 cannot be denied.2.5. But in the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.452/12/ 2014 dated 22.03.2018, the petitioner was directed to vacate the LT 29(N) and the 4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018petitioner submitted a reply on 07.05.2018 with the request for giving some more time to make alternative arrangements, without knowing the letter and spirit of G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 24.03.1997. Again the 1st respondent vide Na.Ka.No.535/ 11/2014 dated 29.10.2018 directing the petitioner to vacate the labour tenement within one week and the petitioner submitted a reply dated 07.11.2018 requesting to executing sale deed of labour tenement I 29(N) as per the G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 24.03.1997, which was received by the 1st respondent on 14.11.2018. Already SIDCO executed the sale deed to one D.Gangadharan, son of M.S.Dharmalingam residing at, LT No. 223, Labour Colony, Thiru. Vi.Ka.Industrial, Guindy, Chennai-32 on 17.11.1997. The said D.Gangadharan retired from service in the year 1995 itself whereas the said G.O.Ms.No.128 came into effect only on 24.03.1997. The petitioner is similarly placed as that of D.Gangadharan and the respondents are duty bound to register the sale deed in respect LT NO. 29N be receiving the sale consideration of Rs.9600/-, otherwise the same would amount to selective discrimination.2.6. The SIDCO has Branches at various places like, Chennai (in Ambatur), Madurai etc., The several employees at Ambathur regarding the payment of rent moved the High Court in Chennai in W.P.No.13846 of 2001 etc. batch and orders were passed in W.P.No.13895 of 2002 fixing the rent for the 5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018workers in SIDCO as Rs.100/- per month. Similar orders were passed in various writ petitions such as W.P.No.13846 of 2001, W.P.No.16705 / 2003 and W.P.No.13895/2002. 2.7. During the pendency of the writ petition the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice in Form A under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1976) in R.C. No.725/A2/2019 dated 15.10.2019. the petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.10.2019. Thereafter the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice in Form B, under section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premised (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1976) in R.C.No.725/A2/2019 dated 04.11.2019. Hence the prayer was amended challenging the eviction notices.3.1 The 1st respondent had filed counter affidavit and submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 24.03.1987 specifically stated that the labor tenements pertaining to the laborers (i.e..) economically weaker section of the society and who are working in SSI units / work sheds covered under Factory Act located inside Industrial Estates staying with the authorized allotment order. Whereas the petitioner is an employee of SIDCO, which is Government of Tamilnadu undertaking. The petitioner was permitted to stay in the Labor Tenement No.6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 201829(N) under possession of SIDCO who was assigned with the duty of Watch & Ward, as Special Grade Watchman and Tenements inside the Industrial Estate with the specific condition that the Labour Tenement should be vacated or surrendered as and when SIDCO requires. Further the SIDCO’s essential service grade employees were allotted with condition to vacate the Labor Tenement at the time of transfer or retire, so as to provide shelter to the new incumbents of SIDCO’s employees. Before the retirement date, Thiru P.Balakrishnan, Watchman, requested to vacate the Labor Tenement and handing over the key to Branch Manager, SIDCO, Madurai vide Lr.No.535/A1/2014 date: 22.03.2018. At that time the petitioner requested “three months-time” to vacate vide his letter dated 07.05.2018. Hence the petitioner was permitted under humanitarian ground to vacate the tenement within 3 months, but the petitioner failed to vacate. Hence, SIDCO once again issued notice to vacate the Labor Tenement within one week time vide T.O.Lr.No.535/A1/2014 dated 29.10.2018. The petitioner neither responded nor vacated. Hence the Branch Manager, SIDCO, sent a Show Cause Notice in letter Na.Ka.No.535/A1/2014 dated 18.12.2018. Further the Petitioner also not paid the monthly rent, hence being an unauthorized occupant the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The petitioner violated the condition of tenement especially Condition No.10. The petitioner had retired from service under superannuation and relieved off from his duty on 30.06.2018 of afternoon, 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018hence the petitioner is not having any right to stay in the tenement. 3.2. The averments of the petitioner are false and misleading. It is true that the G.O. Ms. No 128 dated 24.03.1997 and Circular No. 16962/05/2000 dated 08.02.2001 has ordered to sell the tenement to the occupants economically weaker section who are laborers employed in the Industrial Units or located in the Industrial Estate or employed even outside the Estate or to their legal heirs to various terms and conditions. But, the G.O., will not applicable to this petitioner, since he being an employee of SIDCO. The W.P.No.13846/2001 was filed by 33 labors who are / were working in companies at Industrial Estate Ambattur and they were allotted labor tenements initially as rental basis and in the subsequent orders of the Government. They had prayed in the writ petition to grant the benefit of sale and the Madras High Court had directed to grant an order for executing the sale deed in their favor against the labor tenements allotted to them on rental basis. The G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 24.03.1997 was issued only to the weaker sections of the society and industrial workers and not for the Government employees / Government undertaking employees. If granted the same would be against the Condition No.10 of the allotment order and hence the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 20184. Heard Ms.K.Muthumalai, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.Sathi Kumaran, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the relevant records. After hearing the rival submissions, the Court has given its anxious consideration. 5. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the respondent had allotted the Labour Tenements to the economically weaker section who are laborers employed in the various Industrial Units functioning in SIDCO Estate. Since the petitioner also comes under the economically weaker section and had worked as watchman, then the petitioner is also entitled for outright sale which was granted under G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 24.03.1997. The respondents submitted that the petitioner is not an employee in any of the industrial units in SIPCOT Estate but is an employee under SIPCOT itself and hence the petitioner is not entitled to the said G.O.Ms.No.128. Further the petitioner is not coming under weaker section but a government employee. After hearing the rival contentions this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits since the petitioner was appointed as “Watchman” and had retired as “Watchman Special Grade” hence the petitioner would come under the category of weaker section. 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018 6. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner had violated the Condition No.10 of the allotment, which states that on retirement, transfer the incumbent ought to vacate and hand over the premises. It is seen initially the respondent had allotted the said premises to all the incumbents who were working in the various industrial units for rental only. Thereafter, when there was demand from the Trade Unions it was decided to sell the same to the incumbents by fixing an amount as sale consideration. This fact is evident from G.O.Ms.No.128, wherein it is stated as under: “1. njhopyhsHfSf;F rYif tpiyapy; tPL fl;bj;jUk; jpl;lj;jpd; fPo; njhopw;rhiy gphpau;fs; kw;Wk; nghUshjhuj;jpy; gpd; jq;fpNahUf;fhf njhopy; gFjpf;fUfpNyNa kj;jpa murpd; epjp cjtpAld; tPLfs; fl;lg;gl;ld. nghJj;Jiwapy; (Public Sector) fPo; muR tPl;Ltrjp thupaj;jpd; %yk; ,t;tPLfisf; fl;baJ. 1948-k; Mz;bd; njhopw;rhiyfs;> rl;;lj;jpd; fPo; tUk; njhopw;rhiy CopaHfSf;F tPL fl;bj;ju jdpahH JiwapdUf;Fk; epjpAjtp toq;fg;gl;lJ. mg;gb toq;fg;gLk; njhopyhsHfspd; khj tUkhdk; &.350/-f;F kpfhky; ,Uf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;W tiuaWf;fg;gl;lJ. 2. gpd;dH kj;jpa murpd; Mizg;gbAk;> gy njhopyhsH rq;fq;fspd; KiwaPLfspd; NghpYk; muR jdJ muR Miz epiy vz;: 971> tPl;Ltrjp kw;Wk; efHg;Gw tsu;r;rpj;Jiw> ehs;:15.07.1987-y; njhopyhsu;fSf;fhd rYif tpiy tPl;Ltrjpj;jpl;lk; kw;Wk; nghUshjhuj;jpd; eyptile;j gpuptpdUf;fhf muRj;Jiwapd; %yk; fl;lg;gl;l tPLfis Kjypy; tPL toq;fg;gl;l njhopyhsu;fSf;Nfh my;yJ mt;tPl;by; trpg;gtu;fSf;Nfh rpy epge;jidfspd; Ngupy; mtu;fSf;Nf tPl;il tpw;gJ rk;ge;jkhd Miz ntspapl;lJ. muR Miz (epiy) vz;: 1611> tPl;Ltrjp kw;Wk; efHg;Gw tsHr;rp> ehs;: 09.12.1988-d;gb 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018njhopyhsHfspd; gpw gphpTfSf;Fk; ,j;jpl;lj;ij tphpTgLj;jp Miz ntspaplg;gl;lJ. muR Miz (epiy) vz;: 1074> tPl;Ltrjp kw;Wk; efHg;Gw tsHr;rpj;Jiw> ehs;: 09.11.1989-y; mikg;G/ mikg;G rhuhj njhopw;rhiy gphpT/ Ra Ntiytha;g;Gj;jpl;lk; ,tw;wpy; gzpGhpgtHfSf;Fk; ,j;jpl;lj;jpd;fPo; fl;lg;gl;l tPLfis tpw;gjw;Fk;> tPl;bd; tpuaj;ij nrYj;JtJ gw;wpAk; tpjpKiwfSf;F (norms) tif nra;ag;gl;lJ. muR Miz (epiy) vz;: 249> tPl;Ltrjp kw;Wk; efHg;Gw tsHr;rp> ehs;: 22.02.1991 Nkw;gb tPLfis FbapUg;gth;fSf;F chpkk; khw;wk; nra;tJ gw;wp tpjpKiwfs; ntspaplg;gl;ld.”It is seen that initially for the other persons the place was allotted under rental basis. When the demand for outright sale was put forth then the government had accepted and had issued the said G.O.Ms.No.128. In the present case also the petitioner was allotted the premises for rent since the petitioner was serving as watchman in SIPCOT. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the eligibility criteria of rental occupation, economically weaker section are there in the case of the petitioner, hence the said G.O.Ms.No.128 is applicable. 7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent had relied on the order dated 14.12.2022 passed in W.A.(MD)No.661 of 2012 and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the sale as per G.O.Ms.No.128. On perusing the said case it is seen that the writ petitioner there under had not paid the rent for the past 12 years and hence the Hon’ble Division Bench had declined to grant the 11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018relief. In the present case, the petitioner had paid the rent until his superannuation on 30.06.2018 and after his retirement the petitioner has sought extension of time to vacate, then had requested to grant the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.128 for outright sale. When the claim under G.O. was under dispute the petitioner had not paid the rent. Of course, the petitioner is liable to pay the rent until the sale is granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the said order passed in W.A.(MD)No.661 of 2012 is factually distinguishable and the same is not applicable to the facts of present case. 8. Further there are several orders passed by the High Court granting the relief under G.O.Ms.No.128 and the respondents had implemented the same, therefore the petitioner cannot be denied the relief of G.O.Ms.No.128. 9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on one such order dated 21.08.2023 passed in W.P.(MD)No.379 of 2020 batch wherein the Court had directed to consider the petitioners therein in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.128. The said order was passed by relying on the order passed in W.P.Nos.31097 of 2019 batch wherein it is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners therein. In W.P.(MD)No.768 of 2014 the Court has also consider the claim of the petitioner therein and had directed the authorities to consider under 12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018the said G.O. Infact in one such case the respondents have considered the claim of one individual namely Selvi. Sujatha based on the order passed by the High Court at Madurai and had allotted the Labour Tenement based on G.O.Ms.No.128 vide order dated 14.03.2025 in Na.Ka.No.135/A/2023 and the same is extracted hereunder: 'jpUr;rp mupakq;fyk; rpl;Nfh njhopw;Ngl;il tshf njhopyhsH FbapUg;G vz;: A4 nrd;id cau;ePjpkd;w kJiu mku;T toq;fpa jPu;g;gpd; mbg;gilapy; jq;fsJ ngaupy; fpiuak; gjpT nra;jpl rpl;Nfh epu;zapf;Fk; njhopyhsu; FbapUg;G tpw;gid njhiff;F rk;kjk; vdpy;> mjw;Fupa jq;fsJ xg;Gjy; fbjj;ij cldbahf rpl;Nfh fpis mYtyfj;jpy; rku;g;gpf;FkhW Nfl;Lf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ."10. When there are several orders passed in the similarly placed persons, the petitioner cannot be singled out, if singled out the same would be against Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. For the reasons stated supra, the following orders are passed: i.The impugned orders passed in R.C.No.725/A2/2019 dated 15.10.2019 and R.C.No.725/A2/2019 dated 04.11.2019 are quashed.ii.The respondents are directed to quantify the rent amount for 13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018the period from the date the petitioner is liable to pay the rent until the date the sale is granted to the petitioner and intimate the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. On receipt of the same, the petitioner is directed to pay the rent within eight weeks therefrom.iii.On such payment of rent, the respondents are directed to grant the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.128 Housing and Urban Development (S.C.3 Department) dated 24.03.1997 and the same shall be carried out within eight weeks from the date of payment of rent as stated above. iv.The writ petition is allowed as stated supra. There shall be no order as to costs. 12.08.2025NCC: Yes / NoIndex: Yes / NoInternet: YesTmg14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018S.SRIMATHY , J. TmgORDER MADE INW.P(MD)No.24778 of 2018DATED : 12.08.202515/15