Jagdish Singh vs Indian Airlines & Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 2379 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: May 12, 2017

+     W.P.(C) 670/2006

      JAGDISH SINGH                                      ..... Petitioner

                         Through:     Mr. Anshu Mahajan, Mr. Vikas
                                      Aggarwal & Mr. Karan Arora,
                                      Advocates
                         Versus

      INDIAN AIRLINES & ORS.                           ..... Respondents

                         Through:     Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Ratna
                                      Dwivedi Dhingra & Ms. Bhavna
                                      Dhami, Advocates for respondent
                                      No.1

                                      Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate for
                                      respondent-UOI

      CORAM:

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                      JUDGMENT

% ORAL

By way of this writ petition, a mandamus is sought to respondents to regularize services of petitioner on the post of Helper (Engineer). A large number of vacancies are said to be available with respondents.

According to petitioner, he was selected on the regular post of Helper on 3rd December, 1990 after going through the selection process

and petitioner was kept in the panel along with selected candidates for regular appointment. It is the case of petitioner that vide letter of 3rd December, 1990, respondents had informed him that his name has been kept in the panel of regular appointment but despite the aforesaid communication, petitioner was not offered any regular employment though he made several representations.

At the hearing of this petition, counsel for petitioner candidly admits that copies of the representations made by him are not on record. Attention of this court was drawn to a one page letter of 10 th August, 2004 written by petitioner seeking appointment on regular basis on the post of Helper (Engineer) to the Regional Director, Indian Airlines Limited (IAL), Northern Region (NR), but the fate of the said application/letter is not yet known. Since there is no specific averment qua petitioner's letter of 10th August, 2004 in the present writ petition, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to relegate petitioner to make a proper and effective representation to respondent.

At this stage, counsel for respondents informs that the engineering department of respondent is hived off to another subsidiary of Air India i.e. Air India Engineering Services Ltd. (AIESL) and the representation has to be made to the said authority.

Counsel for petitioner submits that the appropriate representation would be made to Air India Engineering Services Ltd. (AIESL) within a week.

If it is so done, then the concerned authority shall decide the said representation in light of the vacancy position and applicable Circular,

etc., within four weeks by passing a speaking order and the fate of representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter to enable the petitioner to have recourse to law, if need be.

With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of. A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MAY 12, 2017 r