Delhi High Court
Neeta Khungar vs Air India Limited on 27 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 2354/2004
% 27th March, 2017
NEETA KHUNGAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr.
Advocate with Ms. Ankita
Patnaik and Mr. Sahil Sood,
Advocates.
versus
AIR INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Bhavana, Mr. Madan Lal
and Mr. Tejinder, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner seeks the relief of her being granted promotions
in terms of the promotion policy dated 5.6.1997 of the
employer/respondent/Air India Limited. Petitioner who was appointed
as Air Hostess on 4.1.1986 seeks first promotion of Senior Air Hostess
as on 4.1.1991 and then of Check Air Hostess as on 4.1.1996.
Petitioner thereafter seeks the third step promotion for Additional
Senior Check Hostess with effect from 4.1.2000. I may note that in
terms of the promotion policy dated 5.6.1997 the first promotion post
after Air Hostess is Senior Air Hostess, after the post of Senior Air
Hostess the next promotion post is of Check Air Hostess and after the
post of Check Air Hostess the next post is of Additional Senior Check
Air Hostess. The first promotion from Air Hostess to Senior Air
Hostess is after five years of service. The second promotion from
Senior Air Hostess to Check Air Hostess is after serving five years at
the post of Senior Air Hostess. After four years of working as Check
Air Hostess, the next promotion is to the post of Additional Senior
Check Air Hostess.
2. The aforesaid facts as regards the existence of the
promotion policy dated 5.6.1997, entitlement of promotions to the post
of Senior Air Hostess after five years, Check Air Hostess after total of
ten years of service and Additional Senior Check Air Hostess after
total of fourteen years of service is not disputed by the respondent as
per its counter affidavit. It is also not disputed that original
appointment of the petitioner with the respondent was on 4.1.1986 and
therefore in terms of the promotion policy dated 5.6.1997 the
petitioner's first promotion as Senior Air Hostess would become due as
on 4.1.1991. Petitioner's second stage promotion to Check Air Hostess
would become due on 4.1.1996. Petitioner's third promotion to the
Additional Senior Check Air Hostess would become due on 4.1.2000.
3. It is undisputed that as against the petitioner a charge
sheet was issued on 7.5.1997, however, the same ultimately only
resulted in a stoppage of one annual increment w.e.f 1.1.1999 to the
petitioner with cumulative effect in terms of the order dated 15.7.1998
of the appellate disciplinary authority. It may be noted that the original
disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of stoppage of two
increments, but that punishment was reduced by the appellate
disciplinary authority to stoppage of one secondary increment.
Though, respondent in its counter affidavit has pleaded that the
petitioner became entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Air
Hostess only as on 4.1.2000, however, this contention is misconceived
because admittedly as on 4.1.1996 not only there was no punishment
imposed upon the petitioner, but in fact, even a charge sheet was not
issued to the petitioner which was issued on 7.5.1997. I may note that
charge sheet against the petitioner was for unauthorized absence of 117
days from 13.10.1996 till 6.2.1997. Accordingly, in terms of the
promotion policy dated 5.6.1997 petitioner was entitled to the second
promotion of Check Air Hostess as on 4.1.1996. Petitioner also
became entitled to the third promotion of Additional Senior Check Air
Hostess as on 4.1.2000. Since, however, petitioner was undergoing a
punishment of reduction of the annual increment with effect from
1.1.1999 to 31.12.2000, this will have the effect of postponing the
seniority, which was to be granted to the petitioner for promotion to the
post of Additional Senior Check Air Hostess, from 4.1.2000 to
4.1.2001.
4. In conclusion therefore, the petitioner in terms of the
promotion policy of the respondent dated 5.6.1997 became entitled to
the first promotion on 4.1.1991. Second promotion was due on
4.1.1996 and the third promotion became due from 4.1.2001 instead of
4.1.2000, inasmuch as, there was to be a one year postponement of the
promotion as petitioner was undergoing a punishment of reduction of
annual increment from 1.1.1999 to 31.12.1999. I may also note that
the admitted proposition is that on account of promotions being
available prior to 1997 petitioner would not get any monetary benefits
of higher/promotion post, and which monetary benefits would become
available only from the commencement of the policy on 5.6.1997.
5. In the present case, actually entitlement of petitioner to the
monetary emoluments would be only monetary emoluments of the post
of Additional Senior Check Air Hostess with effect from 4.1.2001, but,
since this writ petition is filed only on 9.2.2004 petitioner will get the
monetary emoluments of an Additional Senior Check Air Hostess from
9.2.2001. I may note that principles of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply
to a writ petition for dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay
and laches in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011)
3 SCC 436, and paras 52 to 54 of which judgment read as under:-
"52. In the very first appeal, the respondent filed writ petition on
11.11.2005 claiming relief under the Notification dated 6.10.1989 w.e.f.
1.1.1986 without furnishing any explanation for such inordinate delay
and on laches on her part. Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963, makes it
obligatory on the part of the court to dismiss the Suit or appeal if made
after the prescribed period even though the limitation is not set up as a
defence and there is no plea to raise the issue of limitation even at
appellate stage because in some of the cases it may go to the root of the
matter.
53. Needless to say that Limitation Act 1963 does not apply in writ
jurisdiction. However, the doctrine of limitation being based on public
policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions
are dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and laches. In a case
like at hand, getting a particular pay scale may give rise to a recurring
cause of action. In such an eventuality, the petition may be dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches and the court may refuse to grant relief
for the initial period in case of an unexplained and inordinate delay. In
the instant case, the Respondent claimed the relief from 1.1.1986 by
filing a petition on 11.11.2005 but the High Court for some unexplained
reason granted the relief w.e.f. 1.6.1984, though even the Notification
dated 6.10.1989 makes it applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition
should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner
approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the
Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation
for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and
claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person
had approached the Court within a reasonable time."
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of
by directing the respondent to grant monetary emoluments to the
petitioner for the post of Additional Senior Check Air Hostess from
4.1.2001. Petitioner will also be entitled to all consequential monetary
benefits on the petitioner getting the benefit of notional promotion to
Additional Senior Check Air Hostess from 4.1.2001 and accordingly
monetary emoluments of the post of Additional Senior Check Air
Hostess from 9.2.2001. Respondent will now settle the monetary
payments of the petitioner payable in terms of the present judgment
within a period of three months from today.
7. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms, leaving
the parties to bear their own costs.
MARCH 27, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK
