National Aviation Company Of ... vs Mrs.Amita Singh
2008 Latest Caselaw 1222 Del

*                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            LPA No.2525/2005


National Aviation Company of India Ltd.
(formerly known as AIR INDIA Ltd.)      ..... Appellant
                          Through: Mr.Arvind Kumar, Adv.

                               Versus


Mrs.Amita Singh                          ...Respondent
                               Through: Mr.H. Ahmadi, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

1.Whether reporters of the local news papers
  be allowed to see the judgment?n
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?n
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?n

                                 ORDER

% 4.8.2008

1. M/s Air India has filed this appeal against the order of the

learned single Judge dated 10th August, 2005 in WP(C)

No.64/2005. That writ petition was filed by the respondent

assailing the action of the appellant Air India for not granting the

respondent passages as per the Passage Regulations amended

on 22nd October, 1997. The case of the respondent is that she

LPA No.2525/2005 page 1 of 4 has retired voluntarily as per Rule 46(ii) of the Air India Service

Regulations. The entitlement of passages which is to be

regulated under the Passage Regulations specifically provides

that a person retiring voluntarily would be entitled to two free

and two 90% rebated international passages and/or two free and

two 95% rebated domestic passages. The request of the

respondent for passages under the amended Passage

Regulations was denied by the appellant as she had been

released from the service with effect from 13th July, 1997 on

acceptance of her resignation, which date was prior to the date of

the amendment of the Passage Regulations.

2. The learned single Judge following the judgment of S.K.

Kaul, J in WP(C) No.493/1999 entitled Surinder Boveja v. Air

India issued a mandamus directing the appellant to grant the

respondent two free and two 90 percent rebated international

passages each year as per Passage Regulations which came into

effect in October, 1997.

3. In Surinder Boveja's case (supra) the Court noted that an

ambiguity has arisen in view of the fact that though initially only

on attaining the age of 25 years an employee could seek

LPA No.2525/2005 page 2 of 4 voluntary retirement, the same was subsequently reduced to 20

years on 7th March, 1992 without making corresponding

amendment to these regulations. The amendment to the

regulations was carried out only on 22nd October, 1997 in which

category C is made applicable in case of 20 years of service. By

allowing the writ petition, the Court held as follows:

"I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that apparently the passage regulations were left unamended after the minimum period for seeking retirement was reduced from 25 years to 20 years as the petitioner cannot be treated as a person who has retired on superannuation and thus a vacuum was left to decide the fate of persons between the period of 20 and 25 years of service with the respondent corporation. This aspect would not require adjudication now in view of the relief being claimed only prospectively.

In view of the aforesaid position it is directed that the respondent corporation will give the benefit to the petitioner of the amended regulations w.e.f. 22.10.1997 treating the petitioner as an employee who was permitted to retire voluntarily after completion of not less than 20 years of service."

4. The judgment in Surinder Boveja's case (supra) is

completely in favour of the respondent as it accepted the

contention of the respondent in toto. The decision in Surinder

LPA No.2525/2005 page 3 of 4 Boveja's case (supra) was not challenged by the appellant and

thus has been accepted. If the correctness the law laid down in

Surinder Boveja's case (supra) was not challenged by the

appellant and has attained finality, it is not ordinarily open to the

appellant to challenge the correctness in the case of other

employees, without just cause. Even otherwise, we find that the

view taken in Surinder Boveja's case (supra) is proper and

correct. In our opinion, the order of the learned single Judge does

not require any interference. The appeal is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

S.MURALIDHAR, J August 04, 2008 "nm"

LPA No.2525/2005                                            page 4 of 4