Delhi High Court
Vivek Dhani vs Air India Limited And Ors. on 11 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 11, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11699/2017 & CMs 47462/2017
VIVEK DHANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Joel, Advocate
versus
AIR INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for
respondent No.1
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC, Mr. Sanjay Pal and
Mr. Akshaya Agarwal, Advocates for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In this petition, quashing of orders of 22nd June and 1st September,
2016 as well as orders of 26th April and 10th July, 2017 passed by second
respondent is sought on the strength of medical certificates (Annexures P-
10, P-11 & P-20).
2. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the
challenge to the orders of 22nd June and 1st September, 2016 would be
futile and this petition is confined to orders of 26th April, 2017 and 10th
July, 2017. It is submitted that petitioner had suffered Tonic-Clonic
Seizure on 19th July, 2013 and he was assigned ground duties for a period
of three years and three months, although he was a commercial pilot. The
said period had lapsed on 21st January, 2017 and thereafter, petitioner was
again medically examined on 26th April, 2017 and as per Medical
Certificate (Annexure P-3) petitioner's period of temporary unfitness was
extended for another period of thirty months.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the medical certificates
(Annexures P-10, P-11 & P-20) were produced before the concerned
Authority, but they have not been taken into consideration. It is submitted
that as per medical certificates issued by Max and Apollo Hospital as well
as Government Hospital i.e. R.M.L. Hospital, petitioner has been
assessed to be fit for flying duties. Attention of this Court is drawn to the
Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (Annexure P-15) to point out that in
cases of pilot engaged in Multi-Crew Operations, their effective
incapacitation may be considered less stringently. It is submitted on
behalf of petitioner that petitioner has been on Multi-Crew Operations
and so, there is no justification to deny the flying duties to petitioner
whose Commercial Pilot Licence has lapsed in December, 2017 and only
after petitioner is given medical fitness, it can be renewed.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate
to permit petitioner to file a Representation seeking reconsideration of the
Review Medical Certificate (Annexure P-3) in light of the medical
certificates (Annexures P-10, P-11 & P-20) and in case the authorities
concerned still decide to declare petitioner temporarily unfit, then reasons
for doing so, be spelt out in the order passed on petitioner's
Representation so filed and the needful be done within a period of four
weeks of receiving such Representation and its fate be conveyed to
petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the
remedies as available in law, if need be.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of. Dasti to counsel for the parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 11, 2018
s
