Delhi High Court
Smt. Krishna Devi vs Airport Authority Of India And ... on 25 October, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.6729/2013
% 25th October, 2013
SMT. KRISHNA DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Syed Qamruzzaman, Mr. Mohsin
Israily, Advocates.
Versus
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR. ...Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.14596/2013 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ W.P.(C) No.6729/2013 and C.M. Nos.14594/2013 (stay) and
14595/2013 (interim directions)
1. The issue raised in the present petition is with respect to date of
birth of the petitioner. Petitioner states that her date of birth should be taken
as 10.2.1962 whereas respondents taken the same as 1.7.1945. On account
W.P.(C) No.6729/2013 Page 1 of 5
of the later date of birth claimed by the petitioner, the retirement age also
therefore be subsequent and not in the year 2005 as has been determined by
the respondent/employer.
2. The fact of the matter is that the respondent
no.1/employer/Airport Authority of India passed an order of superannuation
of the petitioner way back on 9.5.2005. This information sent to the
petitioner reads as under:-
"No.AAD/PERS/165/2005/373 9th May, 2005
NOTICE OF RETIREMENT
NAME : SMT. KRISHNA DEVI
DESIGNATION : SR. ATTENDANT
(SAFAIWALA)
EMPLOYEE NO. : 90087
SCALE OF PAY : `5300-9110/-
DATE OF BIRTH : 01.07.1945
DATE OF SUPERANNUATION : 30.06.2005
INSTRUCTIONS
You are hereby advised to apply in writing for the leave
preparatory to retirement and/or for leave encashment, if you so
desired, and if you have not already applied for the same.
You will be entitled to transfer TA (including the transfer grant
and incidental) from the station of posting to your declared hometown
or to the selected place of residence. In the later case, travelling
allowance shall be admissible to you accordingly subject to the above
being limited to what would have been admissible to you, had you
proceeded to your declared home town.
You will be paid your dues as admissible and due to you upon your
retirement. You are required to complete the following forms for
getting your dues. However, this is subject to your producing "NO
DEMAND CERTIFICATE" from the authorities concerned, to the
Department of Finance and Accounts, and surrendering your Identity
Card, as per proforma enclosed.
You will have option to retain your C.P.F. balance in CPF account
W.P.(C) No.6729/2013 Page 2 of 5
upto six months. In case, you do not withdraw the amount standing at
your credit in CPF account upto six month from the date of your
retirement on superannuation, no interest will be credited to your
account after the expiry of six months. You are also requested to
settle all the outstanding dues, if any, at the earliest.
In case of those who are in occupation of AAI (IAD) quarters can
retain the quarter only for a period of TWO months after retirement
and the quarter should be vacated thereafter.
We wish you a very happy and peaceful life.
(A B SAXENA)
PERSONNEL MANAGER
Encl: As above
SMT. KRISHNA DEVI
SR. ATTENDANT (SAFAIWALA) - Through MHK-II"
3. Petitioner challenged this action of the respondents by filing
writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) No.6032/2005. This writ petition
was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The LPA filed
against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed by a
Division Bench of this Court on 5.7.2005. Petitioner preferred an SLP in
which the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7.4.2008 directed
conduct of medical examination of the petitioner and as per that medical
examination conducted by a board from AIIMS, New Delhi, the age of the
petitioner was reported to be more than 55 years as on 12.11.2008. This
therefore belied the claim of the petitioner that she was only in fact born on
10.2.1962 inasmuch as if the petitioner was found to be more than 55 years
of age as on 12.11.2008, she could not be said to have been born on
W.P.(C) No.6729/2013 Page 3 of 5
10.2.1962 as was contended by her. A supplementary affidavit was
accordingly filed by the respondents before the Supreme Court on
11.12.2008 disputing the claim of the petitioner. Supreme Court ultimately
dismissed the SLP on 24.1.2011.
4. Therefore, the issue of challenge by the petitioner to her age
received quietus right till the Supreme Court. Once the issue has been
decided right till the Supreme Court, a fresh petition in the opinion of this
Court is a clear abuse of process of law.
5. Counsel for the petitioner concedes that he was the counsel in
entire earlier litigation. In my opinion, merely because the Supreme Court
dismissed the SLP without giving any reasons cannot mean that petitioner
can again re-agitate the matter because actually dismissal of the SLP will
have the effect of confirming the orders which were passed by the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court. Also, I do not agree that
the medical board gave the report of the petitioner as being 55 years only
because the report dated 12.11.2008 filed as Annexure P-4 to the petition
states that in fact the age of the petitioner is „more than 55 years‟.
6. In view of the above, this petition is ex facie barred by principle
barring filing of repeated litigations on the same issue. The general
principles of res judicata will also bar the petitioner from filing this case.
W.P.(C) No.6729/2013 Page 4 of 5
This writ petition is therefore dismissed with costs of `20,000/- to be
deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Costs be
deposited within four weeks from today.
OCTOBER 25, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
