Buvnes Kumar Rajvanshi & Ors. vs Govt. Of India & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4660 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 382/1999

%                                                    7th October, 2013

BUVNES KUMAR RAJVANSHI & ORS.                              ..... Petitioner
                Through:  None


                          Versus


GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS.                                ......Respondents

Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Bhawna Dhami, Advocates for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. On 27.3.2009 when no one was present on behalf of the petitioners,

the following order was passed:

" The matter has been shown in the supplementary list for today. Possibly for this reason there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners.Mr. Bhasin, learned Counsel for the respondent has, however, appeared and has submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as it is covered by the decision of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Indian Airlines Officers' Association Vs. Indian Airlines Limited and Ors. J.T. 2007 (9) SC 519. In that batch of cases the Hon?ble Supreme Court was hearing petitions challenging the absorption and fitment of the Vayudoot Employees in Indian Airlines. The mechanism

adopted for absorption in Air India and Indian Airlines was different. Whereas in the case of the absorbees of Indian Airlines, the absorbees retained their status, for example, as Assistant Manager, Deputy Manager and Manager upon absorption though they were placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the concerned rank. However, in the case of absorbees of Air India, which the case in hand, the absorbees have been placed at the entry level of the cadre. Consequently, in the above example, irrespective of this fact whether the absorbees were Deputy Managers or Managers, they were placed at the entry level i.e. at Assistant Manager level.

The Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the lateral absorption granted to ex-Vayudoot employees in Indian Airlines. The Indian Airlines Officers Association had, in fact, sought to rely upon the absorption policy for the ex-Vayudoot employees who were absorbed into Air India. However, the Supreme Court rejected the said argument by observing in para 27 as follows:

"27. Again the case of Air India and Indian Airlines are not comparable to each other. Whereas about 300 employees went to Air India as the fresh appointees more than thrice that number had to be adjusted in Indian Airlines. The number was substantial which lost their identity as the Vayudoot employees and as a result of the demand raised by them and after lot of discussions in Civil Aviation Ministry on one hand and the Indian Air Lines authorities on the other a scheme was formulated. We do not think that there as Anything wrong done in adopting two different methodologies in case of Air India and Indian Airlines."

In my view the submissions of the petitioner would have to be considered before a view can be taken that the present case is covered by the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the aforesaid matter.

Issue Court Notice to counsel for the petitioner returnable on 3rd July, 2009."

2. In the present writ petition, the relief which is claimed by the

petitioners is for seniority on absorption in Air India from Vayudoot.

3. The present case is fully covered against the petitioners in view of the

judgment in the case of Indian Airlines Officers'

Association Vs. Indian Airlines Limited and Ors. J.T. 2007 (9) SC 519

referred to in the order dated 27.3.2009.

4. In view of the above, petitioners have no right to challenge their

absorption at a particular entry level in the respondent no. 2/Air India as the

right claimed is decided against them by the Supreme Court in the case of

Indian Airlines Officers' Association (supra). The policy of absorption, and

without which petitioners would have been unemployed, is not in any

manner illegal or arbitrary.

5. The writ petition does not have any merit and is, therefore, dismissed,

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

6. After the aforesaid judgment was dictated, Mr. Arjun Mitra, learned

counsel for the petitioners appeared and he has been informed of the above

judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to argue that

petitioners are not challenging the policy of absorption from Vayudoot to

Air India but rather seeking implementation of that policy, however, when

the counsel for the petitioners was asked to show in the writ petition a

specific ground or a specific clause of the policy which is pleaded to be

violated, nothing could be shown. No relief is also claimed as per the prayer

clause for implementation of the policy or any specific clause therein.

OCTOBER 07, 2013                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara