"State Should Never Stifle Rights Of Poor": Karnataka HC Sets Aside Govt Order Reducing Education Assistance To Children Of Construction Workers

The Karnataka High Court set aside a notification issued by the State Government in 2023, reducing the education assistance amount for children of registered construction workers for pursuing graduation and post-graduation courses.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed “The state should never stifle or smother the rights of the poor. There is no reason whatsoever found in any of the justification projected by the State to do so. The State government must remember that it should take all steps towards educating women, as it is said, educating a man, is educating an individual; educating a woman, is educating a generation.”

Further, the court has now directed the state government and the Karnataka Building And Other Construction Workers Welfare Board to disperse educational assistance to the applications received for financial years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, till completion of education thereto.

It said, “The Board shall consider the applications of similarly situated applicants, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order and not drive every person to knock at the doors of this Court seeking identical relief, as the State can bear the brunt of litigation, but not the poor citizen.”

Petitions were filed by Amritha M and Ankitha H, daughters of construction workers who are pursuing MBA and Law studies. It was submitted that the children of construction workers in terms of the notification of the year 2021 were entitled to a certain amount of educational assistance at the rate of ₹35,000 per semester. This notification came to be amended and the impugned notification was issued on 30-10-2023 reducing the amount of assistance for educational purposes to 10,000, contrary to what was earlier prevailing at ₹30,000/- and ₹35,000, for graduation or post-graduation. Following this, their application for assistance came to be turned down.

During the pendency of the petition the court by way of interim order directed the payment as per the previous notification to the petitioner which was done. The counsel for the petitioners though contended that the challenge to the impugned notification still remains, as the notification grossly reduced the amount payable to registered construction workers and their children, all in an action blatantly contrary to law.

Further, it was claimed that the Board is overspending on administrative expenditure, and underspending on welfare schemes. The deposit of welfare funds that come into the coffers of the Board is ₹6700/- crores and the Board has invested it in fixed deposits in violation of orders of the Apex Court.

The counsel for the board submitted that administrative expenses of the Board are not what is more, but investments to all kinds of assistance to the children of registered construction workers or construction workers themselves. The money no doubt was used for funding the MGNREGA scheme and the establishment of Indira Canteen as well. But, these are immediately stopped. Now what is being done as usage of funds is only on the welfare of construction workers who have registered with the Board.

Findings:

The bench on going through the records noted that the change in the impugned notification is drastic. It said, “Educational assistance to the poor children should only increase and not decrease to such abysmal levels. No reasons are forthcoming in the Notification as to why the notification puts the clock back to a 2011 scale. The lives of children of construction workers should be made good in a progressive manner and not in a regressive manner, as is done in the case at hand.”

Referring to the details as to how Rs.6,700 crores collected by way of cess is spent upon the welfare of the building construction workers and for whose purpose the fund is created and the amount is put into the fund.

The court said, “The expenditure projected by the Board has several heads which do not touch upon the welfare of the construction workers to whom the amount in deposit or its interest has to be necessarily spent.”

It added, “What is projected by the Board appears to be contrary to what is observed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India which audits funds of the Board.”

Referring to the audit report, it said, “Certain shocking revelations are found in the report. The expenditure projected by Board has several heads which do not touch upon the welfare of the construction workers to whom the amount in deposit or its interest has to be necessarily spent.”

Emphasising that officers of the board have not applied for income tax exemption which could have avoided a tax liability of ₹3548 crores.

It said, “It was not 10, 20 or 100 crores but it was ₹3548/- crores. The investment is noticed hereinabove. ₹6700/- crores is in fixed deposit. The interest that it generates can take care of the entire education expenses of the children of registered construction workers. What is happening to the interest is necessary to be accounted for and facts placed before the CAG by the Board. Therefore, the non-availability of funds to be the reason for bringing in the amendment to the notification is absolute gibberish.”

Following this the bench opined, “The state should never stifle or smother the rights of the poor. There is no reason whatsoever found in any of the justification projected by the State to do so.”

Thus it held, “When there is complete budgetary sanction for a benefit that was prevailing at the time when the applications were submitted by the petitioners, it could not have been kept in cold storage for close to 7 months; wait till the change in policy and put them under the bracket of changed policy and hit them hard. Financial difficulties cannot be projected to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights.”

It added “The benefits once extended to them, as observed, create a legitimate expectation to the petitioners that they would get the benefit throughout their period of study. Such legitimate expectation of these petitioners is completely eroded.”

The court thus directed forthwith stopping of bartering the funds of the board for other purposes. It said, “The action of the State, in treating the funds that belonged to the construction workers and their children as the property of the Board, for bartering away for wasteful expenditure must be stopped, and stopped forthwith, as it cannot be forgotten that reference in the preamble to the Constitution of India to the words “we the people” does not mean the miniscule elite, or a larger upper middle class only, but it would be largely inclusive of the people who are below poverty line like the construction workers.”

It added “ They also have a constitutional right to live with basic human dignity and are also entitled to all the rights that flow from the statutes. The rights of construction workers cannot be railroaded in the broad day light by the State, or the Authorities like the Board.”

Allowing the petition the court also directed the Comptroller and Auditor General of India shall take up, if not already taken up, and complete the audit of the funds of the Board within three months, if not earlier, and place the report before the Registry of the Court.

Appearance: Advocate Aditya Chatterjee a/w Advocate Akshita Goyal of Keystone partners for petitioner

AAG Prathima Honnapura for R1 and R3.

Senior Advocate M.R.C RAVI, a/w Advocate Prashanth B R for R2.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 17

Case Title: Amrutha M & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.9924 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order