AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
“a)Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent Nos.1-3 to grant Privileged Leave to the Petitioner for at least 15 days from the quota of F.Y. 2015-2016;
b)Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent Nos.1-3 to immediately expunge the remarks of "absent without leave" from the career records of the Petitioner w.e.f. 10.03.2016;
c)Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent Nos.1-3 to immediately release arears of Petitioner's Salary and 72 hours flying allowance from March, 2016 till date;
d)Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent Nos.1-3 to take the Petitioner on regular flying roster after availing the Privileged Leave so granted to him;
e)Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to immediately take appropriate disciplinary actions against the Respondent Nos.1-3 for their arbitrary, illegal and mala fide actions against the Petitioner;
f)Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to direct the Respondent to not to follow this kind of victimisation of the pilo ts in future;”
Appearing on behalf of AIL, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned Sen ior Counsel, raises an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition against AIL, owing to the disinvestment process initiated by the Government of India. It is submitted that originally AIL was a statutory body constituted under the Air Corporations Act, 1953, however, post its repeal and in terms of the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994, it had become a wholly owned company of the Government of India. It is at this stage that t he present writ petition was filed and rightly entertained. However, n ow AIL has been privatised and the entire shareholding of the Government of India in AIL has been transferred to M/s. Talace Pvt. Ltd., (a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd.) and thus having ceased to be a Public Body or Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, AIL is no longer am enable t o writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of the objection, reliance is placed on the ju dgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Naresh Kumar Beri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3585, wh ere t his issu e was examined and after deliberating on the stands of the respective parties, writ petition was dismissed. Operative para of the judgement is as follows:
“23.The Court also finds merit in the second objection which was addressed on behalf of the respondents who had contended that since AIL had ceased to be a government company by virtue of the exercise of privatization noted above, the writ petition itself would cease to be maintainable. This Court notes that High Courts of the country appear to have consistently taken this position as wo uld be manifest from a reading of the decision rendered in R.S. Madireddy by the Bombay High Court and Tarun Kumar Banerjee by the Karnataka High Court. The said position has also been duly reiterated in the judgments rendered by our Court in Asulal Loya, Ladley Mohan and Satya Sagar. The writ petition would thus warrant dismissal on this score also.”
Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, learned counsel for the Petitioner su bmits that the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in R.S. Madireddy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2657 dismissing the writ petition on account of disinvestment of AIL has been challenged before the Supreme Cou rt and n otice h as been issued on 16.01.2023. Learned counsel also expresses an apprehension that if the writ petition is disposed of and Petitioner is left to resort t o other remedies, AIL may, in future, disown it s liability t owards t he Petitioner on the ground that it is privatized.
Mr. Nayyar, in response, submits that albeit notice has been issued by the Supreme Court, as rightly contended by the cou nsel for the Petitioner, however there is no stay. He fu rther su bmits t hat t he apprehension expressed on behalf of the Petitioner is wholly misplaced inasmuch as, if the Petitioner was t o su cceed before t he Appropriate Forum, the liability shall rest entirely on AIL.
Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for AIL an d cou n sel for the Petitioner, the question that pronouncedly emanates is whether the writ petition is liable to dismissed on ground of maintainability, in wake of the admitted position that during the pendency of this petition, on 27.01.2022, 100% shareholding of Air India has been acquired by M/s. Talace Pvt. Ltd. and Air India has ceased to be a Government controlled company. A Co-ordinate Bench of t h is Cou rt in Naresh Kumar Beri (supra) has already exam ined t his issu e an d held that writ petition ceases to be maintainable. The judgement squarely covers the present cases and this Court is n ot persuaded t o take a different view. It is true that when the writ petition was filed, it was maintainable as AIL was amenable to the writ jurisdiction, however, under the changed scenario, this Cou rt is preclu ded from issuing a writ of mandamus against AIL.
Having said that, I may also pen down t hat Mr. Loh ia, is n ot wrong in questioning as to who would bear t h e liability in case t h e Petitioner was to take recourse to other remedies in a different Forum and succeed. This concern or disquiet, is put to rest by t h e assurance given on behalf of AIL, that in the event of the Petitioner su cceeding in establishing his claims, the liability shall be borne by AIL. The assurance given on behalf of AIL is taken on record an d n eedless t o state shall bind the said Respondent.
In view of the aforesaid, writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed, granting liberty to the Petitioner to take recourse to remedies available to him in law, in an appropriate Forum. It is made clear that the time period, for which t he writ pet ition h as been pending in this Court, will be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation, should the Petitioner seek an y rem edy by instituting fresh proceedings in a Forum where question of lim it ation will be relevant and may arise.