Delhi High Court
Airports Authority Officers ... vs Airports Authority Of India on 22 January, 2018
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 22nd January, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8561/2017
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OFFICERSASSOCIATION (INDIA)
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.M. Sundaram and Mr. K.
V. Balakrishnan, Advs.
versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Pulkit
Tyagi, Advs.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1) This is a writ petition in which the following substantive reliefs
have been claimed:-
"a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the Respondent to recognise the Petitioner Association as
the Association of Officers of CNS Cadre in terms of the
Policy dated 01.03.2017.
b) Restrain the Respondent from extending the dates of
submission of documents and undertakings as stated in its
Policy from other Association claiming to be the
representative of CNS Cadre."
2) The first substantive hearing in the matter was held on 27
September 2017. The following order was passed: -
"Mr. Rai, ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that
for the purpose of recognition of the Association in terms of
its policy dated 1.3.2017 that has come to be framed in
pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 23.12.2015
and in respect whereof, process has come to be concluded on
25.9.2017, there shall not be any further extension for the
purpose. Mr. Rai also states that the respondent shall strictly
follow the instructions or the guidelines provided under the
policy on the subject in vogue. Let a short affidavit to that
effect be filed, a week before the adjourned date.
List on 8th December, 2017."
(emphasis is mine)
3) As would be evident on that date, an opportunity was given to
the respondent to file a short affidavit in terms of the observations
made in the order.
4) The respondent, accordingly, has filed a short affidavit. Along
with the affidavit, the respondent has appended a letter dated 9
November 2017.
5) Via the said letter, the respondent has recognised the petitioner/
association. The only grievance that the petitioner has vis-a-vis the
communication is that the period of recognition has been truncated
and would, accordingly, end on 31 March 2019. According to the
petitioner, the period should end in November, 2019. The petitioner's
assertion in this is sought to be backed by the extant policy, which is
the policy dated 1 March 2017. As per this policy the period of
recognition is two years, and, therefore, the petitioner says the period
recognition in its case should end on 9 November 2019.
6) On the previous date, Mr. Rai, who appears for the respondent
had sought time to obtain instructions. Mr. Rai says that if recognition
period qua the petitioner is extended till 9 November 2019 it will
bring about administrative difficulties.
7) Concededly, paragraph 7 of the policy (i.e., policy dated 1
March 2017) clearly stipulates that the period of recognition, in each
category qua associations should be of two years, which should
commence from the date of recognition.
7.1) Therefore, the petitioner, in my view, is rightly aggrieved
inasmuch as the communication dated 9 November 2017 truncates the
period of recognition.
8) What has emerged during the course of arguments is that there
are, broadly, three cadre based associations. These are AAI, CNS and
Engineering.
8.1) The petitioner represents the CNS Cadre and upon the issuance
of letter dated 9 November 2017 is the only recognised association
qua the said cadre.
9) I was told by Mr. Rai that in terms of paragraph 3, chapter-6 of
the extant policy, the respondent is empowered to recognise one more
officers' association, which could be considered for grant of
recognition on All India Basis. Such an association according to Mr.
Rai would function for the welfare of employees the respondent
falling in any cadre, for instance, HR/ Administration/ Finance/
Commercial/ Land/ Law/ OL/ Operations etc.
9.1) It is Mr. Rai's submission that any direction issued to enlarge
the tenure of the petitioner till 9 November 2019 will, as indicated
above, cause administrative difficulties. I think these are matters
which the respondent will have to work out. Since, the policy itself
says that recognition will run for a period of two years from the date
of recognition being granted, the respondent cannot take a stand contra
to its own policy.
10) Furthermore, an argument was advanced by Mr. Rai that the
scope of the writ petition did not envisage as to the period for the
recognition would last. In my view, the submission is untenable as a
perusal of the very first prayer, i.e., prayer clause (a) would show that
the petitioner was seeking recognition in terms of policy dated 1
March 2l017. Since, the policy itself, as indicated above, says that the
period of recognition will be two years, the said relief was clearly
embedded in prayer clause (a).
10.1) In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the same has already
been worked out in view of the fact that respondent, concededly, had
fixed 25 September 2017, as the date of a final submission of
documents by interested associations.
10.2) As a matter of fact, the petitioner had, as the record would
demonstrate, submitted the relevant documents for recognition before
the initial cut off date, which was 30 April 2017. The petitioner,
admittedly, had submitted its documents on 23 March 2017, and,
therefore, given facts, no fault can be found with the approach of the
petitioner. The petitioner is, in my opinion, entitled to complete relief.
10.3) During the course of hearing, Mr. Rai submitted minutes of
meeting dated 5 January 2018, whereby, he sought to demonstrate the
petitioner/ association had agreed with truncated period. The
photocopy of the said letter has been placed before me. I have perused
the minutes. Nowhere does it indicate that the petitioner has agreed to
a truncated period. While the issue pertaining to truncated period on
the agenda but there is no consent given by the petitioner in that
behalf. Therefore, this submission advanced by Mr. Rai will have to
be rejected.
10.4) As indicated above, to my mind, consents cannot be given and
taken contra to the stated policies.
10.5) At the fag end of the proceedings, Mr. Rai makes another
submission which, according to me, is completely untenable. Mr. Rai
says that even though the relevant documents were filed by the
petitioner before the cut off date, it ought to have been approached the
Court at the earliest and not waited as long as it did.
10.6) According to me, taking recourse to a legal remedy is the last
resort of any person or entity. Approaching Courts for relief requires
an aggrieved party to put in place financial and logistical wherewithal;
a harsh truth which the Courts cannot ignore. Besides this, the usual
exhortation by us to litigants to exhaust avenues for amelioration of
their grievances, in the first instance, on the administrative side. The
petitioner, perhaps, kept this wholesome dicta in mind and approached
this Court, though not, instantly but within a reasonable period. It is
when the grievance was not addressed by the concerned authority that
the petitioner instituted the present writ petition.
11) The respondent, to my mind, cannot take advantage of its own
wrong. If this argument of the respondent is accepted apart from
anything else the period of recognition will then depend upon the
whim and fancy of the respondent.
12) Thus, the respondent is directed to issue an amended letter
indicating therein that the petitioner's period of recognition will end
on 9 November 2017. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 22, 2018
rb
