Delhi High Court
Sarthak Khandelwal And Ors. vs Air India Limited And Ors. on 25 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: October 25, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 6137/2018, CM Nos. 23779/2018, 41436/2018, 32135/2020,
33912/2020 & 8843/2021
SARTHAK KHANDELWAL AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Mr. K. Paari
Vendhan, Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy
B., Ms. Malar Vendhan &
Ms. Pariksha and Mr. Aditya Mewara,
Advs.
versus
AIR INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Suruchi Suri and
Mr. Varun Singh Thapa, Adv. for R-1
to 5
Ms. Srilina Roy, Adv. for R-6 to
R-9
Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Bharti Chawla and Ms.
Malvika Jain, Advs. for R-57,
62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73,
76, 79, 128, 132 & 149.
Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for
Intervener.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CM. No. 32135/2020 (for delay)
This is an application filed by the applicants / petitioners
seeking condonation of 48 days delay in filing reply to the
affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5. For the reasons stated
in the application same is allowed and the delay is condoned.
The reply is taken on record.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6137/2018
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with
the following prayers:
"It is therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the petitioners most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(A) That the respondents be directed to issue Command
training Letters for their Command Training and their
original seniority be not disturbed.
(B) That the respondents be directed not to issue
Command Training letter and conduct training in terms
of letter dated 19.06.2017 of persons who are much
junior to the petitioners as the same is discriminatory
and the petitioners are entitled for the same.
(C) That the circular dated 13.07.2017 be quashed.
(D) That the letter dated 19.06.2017 be quashed to the
extent which confers seniority to other persons who are
junior to the petitioners.
(E) Such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
2. The instant petition arises from a dispute which finds its
origin in the circulars of respondent Nos.1 to 5, i.e., Air India
dated August 27, 2015, June 19, 2017 and July 13, 2017,
concerning its Wide-body (Aircraft) Pilots. It was from the
circular dated June 19, 2017, through which a "New Career
Progression Policy" ('policy', for short) was brought into place,
replacing the Wage Agreement which governed the Pilots
including the petitioners herein. This circular has been given
effect from June 1, 2017. This circular was followed by another
circular dated July 13, 2017, which extended the deadline for
grant of newly introduced E-5 Grade, i.e., Captain's Grade to a
date of June 30, 2017 without effecting the seniority. The
petitioners contend that the earlier subsisting seniority list is now
sought to be replaced by a new seniority list even for the
command upgrade even though the regulations of the Directorate
General for Civil Aviation ('DGCA', for short) as well as the
policies, wage agreements, and operations manual of the
respondent Nos.1-5 ('Respondent No. 1', for short) provided for
a different set of eligibility requirements, different from that
required for obtaining the Captain's Grade. The petitioners have
contended that they became eligible for the Captain's Grade and
consequently for command upgrade in September 2017 when
they cleared Air-Line Transport Pilot papers ('ALTP papers' for
short). They have contended in the petition that a command
upgrade was offered to their juniors for the first time in June,
2018 on the basis of ante-dated, retrospective circulars which the
petitioners allege are illegal and in-actionable.
3. Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners stated, that as per the Career Progression, a candidate
starts flight training in a flight school. He begins with his first
license which is the Student Pilot License ('SPL', for short).
After the candidate has gained adequate flight experience which
is recorded as flight hours and on passing the written examination
and accompanying flight tests, the candidate qualifies for the
Private Pilot License ('PPL', short), which enables an individual
to fly privately. In order to work as a commercial airline pilot for
a commercial airline such as the respondent No.1, i.e., Air India,
a Pilot needs to upgrade to a Commercial Pilots' License ('CPL',
for short), which requires further flight training / flight hours and
is accompanied by further written examinations and flight tests.
He stated, the assessment for eligibility and issuance of the
aforesaid licenses are within the purview of the DGCA, the
Indian Regulator for Civil Aviation, and governed by the Aircraft
Rules, 1937 and the Civil Aviation Requirements ('CAR', for
short) made thereunder.
4. Mr. Lohia submitted that in order to join respondent No.1
Air India, a Pilot must have a CPL as a pre-requisite and
additionally qualify Air India's specific examination scheme after
which a newly recruited pilot would start his / her employment
from the post of a Trainee Pilot working towards 'Type Rating'
which is a specific kind of Aircraft Training corresponding to
certain types of aircrafts such as Boeing-737, Boeing-777,
Airbus-320, etc. This specialized training includes theoretical
instructions and practical training such as flight experience on
aircraft simulator and on actual aircrafts. Once a candidate has
successfully completed the training programme, the 'Type' of
aircraft is endorsed by the DGCA on the CPL of the Trainee Pilot
who would then be licensed to fly that 'Type' of Aircraft. After
which the Pilot is then 'RELEASED' by the airline to operate as
Co-Pilot / First-Officer who in a multi-crew environment assists
the Commander / Pilot-in-Command ('PIC' for short) in
conducting routine commercial operations for the airlines. The
First-Officer is entitled to only one promotion, i.e., of a
Commander, which requires a higher and more intensive training.
He stated, the DGCA has set up the minimum qualification for a
Commander as (i) attainment of a minimum age of 25 years.; (ii)
possession of a valid Air-Line Transport Pilot License ('ALTP
License', for short). This license too is issued by the DGCA.
5. According to him, the pre-requisite for acquiring an
ALTP is that an individual must be a First-Officer holding a valid
CPL. An individual in order to obtain the ALTP License must
first obtain ALTP papers which consist of written examination(s)
and viva. These written and oral examinations are conducted
four times in a year. The ALTP License is not issued immediately
to the successful candidate who has obtained the ALTP papers
unless they have also earned the requisite 1500 flight hours,
which must accrue not more than three years after passing the
ALTP papers. Later the validity of the ALTP papers was
increased to five years in order to allow more pilots to gain the
requisite 1500 flight hours. The ALTP License is only issued
after a candidate has deposited the requisite fees and is able to
prove the 1500 hours of flight experience along with the proof of
passing the ALTP papers. Mr. Lohia stated that the process of
the ALTP papers lasts for around 3-4 months.
6. Mr. Lohia stated that Air India in its Operations Manual
which is a DGCA certified legal document has expanded on the
qualification of command training. He stated that the petitioners
are all former Pilots employed by Air India, now termed as
'Wide-Body Pilots' of the 'Boeing Fleet' and accordingly their
qualifications for command training were governed by the
Operations Manual of Air India for Boeing Pilots, wherein the
First-Officer was required to have the following qualifications;
i. a valid ALTP License,
ii. minimum five years which was later reduced to
three years and two months by the internal memo,
iii. 2750 hours of flight experience on Company
Aircrafts.
As per Mr. Lohia, even after having the abovementioned
qualifications, the First-Officer must also wait for his / her actual
turn as per line-seniority. Even when the turn comes, the First-
Officer must still be in possession of the abovementioned
qualifications in order to proceed for command training or else
forfeit his / her seniority to the next eligible First-Officer. Mr.
Lohia argued that all the petitioners were in possession of the said
qualifications much earlier and it is his contention that the
petitioners' immediate junior was sent for command training after
bypassing them.
7. Mr. Lohia stated that Air India is a merged entity of the
former Indian Airlines and Air India. Since the merger in 2007,
there were a lot of complications regarding the same whereinafter
a committee chaired by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharmadhikari
(Retd.) was formed ('the Committee' for short) to provide for a
systematic merger by a proposing a common service and a
common promotion criterion thus protecting the seniority of the
erstwhile employees. One such proposal was the introduction of
a Captain's Grade as a middle point between the ranks of the
First-Officer and Commander. These Grades were then equated
with that of the other Public Sector Undertakings wherein the 'E'
Grade System was brought. According to Mr. Lohia, these
Grades had been paired with the existing grades as follows:
E-4 : First Officer
E-5 : Captain
E-6 : Commander
This in-between Grade of Captain, i.e., E-5 is unique to
Air India and other Airlines may or may not have it. Some of the
Airlines call this in-between Grade as 'Senior First-Officer'. Mr.
Lohia stated that the DGCA which is the regulatory authority has
not established any rules for this in-between Grade which is
peculiar to Air India.
8. It is the case of the petitioners that the proposed Grade at
E-5 along with its eligibility was accepted by Air India. A
Circular dated August 27, 2015, was issued which according to
Mr. Lohia was never notified or publicised. This Circular referred
to an earlier communication, i.e., the note sheet dated May 25,
2015, regarding placement of Co-Pilots / First Officers of Wide-
Body in Captain's Grade. The petitioners belong to this category
included in the Circular, wherein a new criterion for passing
ALTP papers by a certain cut-off date was defined. This Circular
ostensibly sought to provide for an extension of six months, i.e.,
up to January 31, 2016, for passing the ALTP papers. One of the
main contentions of Mr. Lohia is that the cut-off date, except, in
the Circular has not been mentioned anywhere and the same does
not mention anything about the acquisition of an ALTP License,
but simply refers to the passing of ALTP papers, which is only a
step towards getting the ALTP License. As per Mr. Lohia, since
the ALTP papers had a limited validity, the Pilots could sit for the
ALTP examination only when they would start approaching the
1500 hours flight experience benchmark.
9. The seniority of the petitioners was based on the date of
joining, post-merger and the recommendations of the committee
was that since their joining was pre-2012, they were placed in
list-B governed by the erstwhile Air India Rules. Mr. Lohia
stated that the rules of seniority were changed by a notification,
for passing the ALTP papers by a certain cut-off.
10. Mr. Lohia stated that the petitioners' batchmates who had
been selected for fleets such as the Boeing-737 would have
already completed or might have neared completion of the 1500
hour benchmark around the year 2016 after which they appeared
for the ALTP papers in order to receive the ALTP License. Mr.
Lohia's contention is that the petitioners reached the 1500 hour
benchmark only around September 2016 onwards after which
they started to appear for the ALTP papers, since they had the
pre-requisite flight experience for it. Others who got their ALTP
License prior to the petitioners were on Boeing-737 or other
fleets where they were accruing around 800-1000 hours of flight
experience in a year. Whereas the petitioners were gaining
around 300-350 hours or fewer in a year as the long-haul flights
have multiple sets of Pilots because of which the flying hours get
divided and there are also longer layovers of 2-3 days (out-
station) and 5-6 days (base-station). It is for this reason, Pilots
such as the petitioners could only accrue 30-35 hours per month,
adding up to 300-350 hours a year, taking into account the one
month of leave and training. Mr. Lohia has stated that the
petitioners' juniors have superseded them which is unfair since
the flying hours in long-haul flights differ from the other fleets
which provide shorter but more frequent flying opportunities.
11. Mr. Lohia argues that the Circular of August 27, 2015,
which was not notified or made public at all, even to the parties
who are directly affected by it, has resulted in grave prejudice to
the petitioners. It is his case that, had the petitioners been
informed of the upcoming new criterion, inclusive of the cut-off
date for passing the ALTP papers, the petitioners would have
started making efforts to clear the said papers before the first cut-
off date of January 31, 2016. He stated that this information was
selectively confirmed to certain Pilots who appeared and cleared
the ALTP papers prior to the cut-off date and it is these Pilots
whose seniority remained unaffected. However, those Pilots who
were not notified including the petitioners, who cleared the ALTP
papers after June 30, 2016, which is the final cut-off date, were
then placed in a new Common Seniority List, wherein they have
lost almost 156 places and the petitioners' chance for getting a
command upgrade has been pushed back by almost three years.
12. Mr. Lohia contests the multiple extensions to the cut-off
date granted, which are as follows:
a. First extension: Some date prior to the
Circular of August 27, 2015 which was never
notified.
b. Second extension: Up to January 31, 2016,
by the Circular of August 27, 2015, which was also
not notified.
c. Third extension: up to June 1, 2017, vide
Career Progression Circular dated June 19, 2017,
which had been notified.
d. Last extension: Up to June 30, 2017, by
Internal Circular dated July 13, 2017, which had
also been duly notified.
He argued that, had Air India notified and publicised this
change in policy well in advance there would have been no
cause of action for the petitioners to file this petition.
13. Mr. Lohia pointed to the fact that all the Circulars are
ante-dated and provide for cut-off dates which have already
expired, on the date of the circular. He stated that such actions
itself are enough to show malafide intention on the part of Air
India. The petitioners were only aware of the two ante-dated
Circulars which were duly notified, i.e., (i) the Career
Progression Circular dated June 19, 2017, notifying the cut-off
date of June 1, 2017, and; (ii) Internal Circular dated July 13,
2017, which had extended the previous cut-off date from June 1,
2017, to June 30, 2017. He argued that through the Circular
dated June 19, 2017, the petitioners had received the first
Circular of August 27, 2015 for the first time. He stated the
petitioners stood no chance to qualify, as both the circulars had
retrospective effect. He stated that the respondents have falsely
stated that the Circular dated August 27, 2015, was uploaded on
the ARMS crew portal and was taken down as six years had
elapsed since then, whereas the ARMS crew portal is one of the
official modes of service for Air India which to this date has
circulars dating back to 2014 but not August 27, 2015, and the
only circular regarding the present controversy uploaded is that
of June 19, 2017.
14. Mr. Lohia sought fixation of responsibility with regard to
this controversy. He has also stated that since the petitioners
and other similarly placed Co-Pilots / First-Officers were only
informed of this new final cut-off date of June 30, 2017, at a
later point of time they must be justifiably allowed sufficient
time period beginning from June 30, 2017, to clear the ALTP
papers without affecting their original line-seniority and other
Co-Pilots / First-Officers of Air India who did not clear the
ALTP papers even after the extended notice period may be
considered under the new seniority rule as defined in the Career
Progression Policy dated June 19, 2017. Mr. Lohia seeks the
prayer as made in the petition.
15. Mr. Sanjiv Sen, learned Sr. Counsel along with
Mr. Varun Singh Thapa appeared for respondent No.1 and have
at the very outset contended that the present writ petition is not
maintainable and the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be
invoked as at the heart of this writ petition lies a service dispute
and as such writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for enforcing
personal contracts. In this regard, reliance has been placed on
the Judgment of Girish G. & Anr. v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC
Online Ker 1903. Mr. Sen has also argued that there is an
alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioners, which
has not been availed, i.e., the petitioners belonging to the
category of workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have failed to approach the
appropriate forum. The alternate efficacious remedy ought to be
availed first, before approaching this Court.
16. Mr. Sen has also argued that the alleged dispute of the
petitioners falls under the purview of the policy-making powers
which solely belong to Air India and this Court ought not to
interfere with the internal policy of respondent No.1. With
regard to the reliefs sought by the petitioners wherein they seek
quashing of the Career Progression Policy dated June 19, 2007,
and Circular dated July 13, 2017, the same cannot be sustained
in the light of the fact that the formulation of policies governing
the terms and conditions of the employees of respondent No.1 is
a pure managerial function including implementation of policy
and the employees do not have a say in the same.
17. Mr. Sen has also alleged that the petitioners have not
approached this Court with clean hands, i.e., though the
petitioners have not been granted the command training at this
stage, but are still receiving the benefits of notional command
under the Career Progression Policy dated June 19, 2017, since
January 1, 2018, whereby they are entitled to equal monetary
emoluments / allowance (s) to that of a Captain's grade; which
goes to show that as far as the monetary benefits / allowance (s)
are concerned, there is no disparity between the petitioners and
other Co-Pilots / First Officers, who have attained the Captain's
Grade. In this regard, he has relied on the Career Progression
Policy i.e. Circular dated June 19, 2017, which deals with aspect
of notional command. He stated that since the petitioners have
been availing the benefits of the aforesaid policy even before
filing of the present petition, they cannot be allowed to
challenge the same to the effect that it has impacted their
seniority. In this regard, Mr. Sen has relied on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah v. Union of
India and Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 120.
18. Mr. Sen submitted that respondent No.1, Airlines is
already facing, huge financial losses which have been worsened
due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and if this Court were to
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 relating to subject
matters which are purely within the managerial ambit of the
respondent No.1, the same would result in an unwarranted
situation where other Pilots / employees of the Airlines would
be severely impacted and the expenses incurred by respondent
No.1 would be further inflated and also the flight / training
schedules and commercial operations of the respondent No.1
would come to a grinding halt.
19. Mr. Sen stated the petitioners joined the services of the
erstwhile Air India as Trainee Pilots between January 01, 2007,
to December 31, 2010, who have completed five years from the
date of joining as Trainee Pilots in terms of the Operation
Manual designed for Boeing Fleet were eligible for promotion
to the post of Captain's Grade. As per the Wage Agreement
implemented in the year 2006, the same petitioners working as
First-Officers are now referred to as Wide-Body Co-Pilots.
According to Mr. Sen, the reliance placed on the Wage
Agreement by the petitioners to assert that they have to be
considered for command training / upgrade to the post of
Captain / Commander as and when they are in possession of
ALTP license, is misplaced as there was no stipulated period /
time-frame within which the ALTP examination was to be
cleared. An internal Circular bearing number HPD01/0-1201
dated August 27, 2015, issued by respondent No.2 informed that
the Co-Pilots of the Wide-Body Aircraft would be considered
for placement to Captain's Grade only on completion of three
years and two months of service and passing of the ALTP
papers up to January 31, 2016. The said letter had been
forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 in order to
enable it to inform the affected Pilots of Wide-Body Aircraft
about the said decision.
20. In response to the RTI application dated November 23,
2017, filed by the petitioners, wherein information was sought
from respondent No.3 enquiring about the mode through which
the aforesaid Circular dated August 27, 2015, was served upon
the affected Pilots including the petitioners; the respondents
informed the petitioners vide e-mail dated December 04, 2017,
that the said application was forwarded to the Central Nodal
Officer, HQ Airlines. Thereafter various follow-up e-mails
were sent by the petitioners regarding the status of the said
application. On December 22, 2017, the respondents informed
the petitioners that the said complaint was forwarded to the
CPIO & GM (HQs.), being the concerned department since the
application pertains to respondent No.1's operations department.
On receipt of a non-satisfactory reply, the petitioners filed an
RTI appeal on January 18, 2018, before the First Appellate
Authority.
21. According to Mr. Sen in order to be eligible for command
training, petitioners have relied upon the eligibility criteria as
prescribed under Part-D of the Operations Manual for the
Boeing Fleet which provides for a requirement of a valid ALTP
License, completion of a minimum period of 5 years from the
date of joining as Trainee Pilots and minimum experience of
flying the aircraft for 2750 hours. He submitted that on account
of the merger of erstwhile Air India (Wide-Body Aircraft) and
Indian Airlines Ltd. (Narrow-Body Aircraft) a harmonised
Career Progression Policy was introduced by respondent No.1,
i.e., vide circular dated June 19, 2017 (w.e.f June 01, 2017)
which replaced the earlier Wage Agreement of 2006. As per
the said policy, the eligibility criteria prescribed for First-
Officers for upgradation to the post of Captain / Commander,
passing the ALTP papers and completion of three years and two
months from the date of first Officer's release check.
22. Despite the extensions of the date granted for qualifying
ALTP papers up to June 30, 2017, the petitioners appeared for
the said examinations only in July 2017. The results of which
were declared on July 31, 2017, and September 30, 2017. The
petitioners have alleged that despite clearing the mandatory
ALTP papers and fulfilling the criteria laid down for the post of
Captain's / Commander's Grade, no command training letters
were issued to them and that they were superseded inasmuch as
the same were issued to the Pilots who are much junior to them.
After which various representations dated June 14, 2016, July 9,
2017, November 6, 2017 and December 14, 2017, were made by
the petitioners to respondent No. 1, wherein they had aired their
grievance with regard to non-issuance of command training
letters to them and stated that the harmonised Career
Progression Policy dated June 19, 2017, is in conflict with the
Common Wage Agreement implemented in the year 2006. Mr.
Sen stated that a writ petition No. being W.P.(C) 1008/2018 was
preferred by the petitioners before this Court which was been
disposed of vide order dated February 05, 2018 with a direction,
to consider the grievance of the petitioners. Pursuant to which
the representation dated November 06, 2017, of the petitioners,
was considered by respondent No.2 and vide letter dated April
17, 2018, it was explained that the implementation of the new
harmonised Career Progression Policy dated June 19, 2017, was
a managerial act and the employees do not have any role in the
policy making and it was further informed to the petitioners that
their grievance could not be examined as the petitioners had
failed to provide the names of Pilots who were allegedly junior
to them who were issued the command training letters by the
respondents. Mr. Sen argued that it is only after the said
representation was decided, the present petition had been filed
seeking quashing of Circular dated July 13, 2017, and
harmonised Career Progression Policy dated June 19, 2017.
23. Mr. Sen argued that the relief sought by the petitioners
regarding issuance of command training letters cannot be
entertained at this stage as there are certain Co-Pilots / First-
Officers senior to the petitioners who at present are either
waiting for their command training or are currently under the
stages of such training. Mr. Sen stated that the petitioners'
names appear at serial numbers 203, 205, 207, 208 and 211 of
the seniority list for Co-Pilots / First-Officers of Wide-Body
Aircraft and that they are anyway scheduled to undergo
command training w.e.f March 01, 2021 on A-320 Aircraft.
The said petitioners would undergo training only after the Co-
Pilots whose names appear in the seniority list above the
petitioners have completed their respective command training
and the respondent No.1 is under no obligation to send the
petitioners for training out of turn, as the same would jeopardise
the rights of Pilots who are senior to them.
24. Mr. Sen responded to the argument of the petitioners by
stating that in so far as the grievance of other respondents,
currently at serial numbers 128 to 133 of the seniority list are
concerned with regard to being sent on command training on A-
320 Aircraft (Narrow-Body) instead of B-787 / 777 Aircraft
(Wide-Body) in view of operational requirements; he stated, the
said Co-Pilots / respondents have already received 2/3rd of their
command training on A-320 Aircraft. The expenses which have
been borne by respondent No.1 is to the tune of ₹20 Lacs per
Pilot. Even if it were to be assumed that the grievance of the
petitioners is genuine, the same cannot be entertained at all
because that would entail huge expenditure on each and every
Pilot and lead to loss of resources of the respondent No.1
Airline.
25. Mr. Sen argued that it is the petitioners who have failed to
clear the ALTP papers within the stipulated time period despite
having been granted several opportunities to clear the same. As
a consequence of which the petitioners have lost their seniority
and could not be considered for command training for the post
of Captain / Commander. According to him, despite stipulating
the cut-off date for clearance of the ALTP papers as January 31,
2016, vide Circular dated August 27, 2015, which was then later
extended to June 30, 2017, vide Circular dated July 13, 2017,
the petitioners have admittedly cleared their examination on
September 30, 2017, which is beyond the aforesaid cut-off
dates. As a result of which the petitioners lost their seniority to
the Co-Pilots / First-Officers who had cleared their ALTP
papers within the stipulated period and bypassed the petitioners
in the seniority list and were considered for command training
as per the operational requirement of the Airlines.
Consequently, due to the loss of their seniority, the petitioners
were downgraded in the seniority list and they find themselves
currently at serial numbers 203, 205, 207, 208 and 211.
26. Mr. Sen rebuts the contention that the petitioners were
never served with the Circular dated August 27, 2015, which is
why they failed to clear the said examination within the
stipulated time period as untenable. He stated that on the basis
of the report dated January 31, 2012, of the Committee where
the rule of three years and two months was proposed, the
Circular dated August 27, 2015, was issued by the Executive
Director (Personnel and IR), Air India, whereby the said rule
was implemented and a cut-off date for clearance of the ALTP
papers was stipulated as January 31, 2016. The said Circular
was issued to the Office of the Executive Director (Operations),
Air India enabling the respondent Airline to convey the said
decision to all the affected Pilots. Additionally, the said
Memorandum was also uploaded on the crew portal maintained
by Air India, which is accessible to all the Pilots. Mr. Sen has
stated that the Circular being an internal circular was duly
circulated to the concerned department which had brought it to
the notice of all its employees to whom the said Circular
applies.
27. Mr. Sen stated that the petitioners even in their
representations dated July 9, 2017, November 6, 2017, and
December 14, 2017, have admitted of being apprised of the
decision of the Management regarding the implementation of
the aforesaid three years and two months rule within which the
ALTP examinations had to be cleared from the Indian Pilots
Guild ('IPG' for short). In the said representations the
petitioners admit of being apprised of the grace period of six
months given for clearing the ALTP papers in the event the
same are not cleared within the initial time period. He stated
that the only inference which can be drawn from the aforesaid is
that the petitioners were well aware of the implementation of the
new rule for the purpose of command training to the post of
Captain / Commander and this shows that the alleged grievance
that they had never been served with the Circular dated August
27, 2015, is misconceived.
28. It is the case of the Air India so contended by Mr. Sen
that the petitioners' reliance on the Common Wage Agreement
to claim seniority and command upgrade to the post of Captain /
Commander is also misplaced since the formulation and
implementation of the harmonised Career Progression Policy
dated June 19, 2017 (w.e.f June 1, 2017) for the merged entity,
i.e., Air India, the Wage Agreement implemented in the year
2006 stands superseded. The said superseded Wage Agreement
was applicable to the Co-Pilots of erstwhile Air India only,
however, post-merger the said harmonised Career Progression
Policy was introduced for respondent No.1. Even otherwise, the
superseded Wage Agreement does not inure to the benefit of the
petitioners inasmuch as it clearly states that any Pilot bypassed
for command training due to non-possession of ALTP License
cannot have any claim on his original seniority upon obtaining
the ALTP License. In this regard, Mr. Sen has relied upon the
Command Training clause. He seeks the dismissal of the writ
petition.
29. Ms. Srilina Roy, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6
to 9 stated that the said respondents are Pilots who though junior
to petitioner No. 5 were senior to the other petitioners whose
prayer for restoration of their original seniority is non-
maintainable. She is in agreement with the arguments of Mr.
Sen that though the petitioners were erstwhile employees of Air
India and their Career Progression was governed by the Wage
Agreement, but Clause (c) of the said Wage Agreement stated
that a Co-Pilot / First-Officer not in possession of an ALTP
License at the time for consideration of command training will
be bypassed and command training would be offered as per line
seniority only to Pilots possessing an ALTP License. She stated
that the Pilots bypassed for command training due to non-
possession of ALTP License cannot have any claim to their
original seniority. She stated on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to
9 that on November 18, 2014, the IPG urged all the First-
Officers / Co-Pilots to clear the ALTP papers with utmost
urgency. This fact has also been admitted by the petitioners in
their representations to respondent No.1 dated December 14,
2017, July 9, 2017, and November 6, 2017.
30. Ms. Roy has given the details of the respondents
regarding their obtaining the ALTP License and command
training letter; (i) respondent No. 7 acting upon the letter dated
November 18, 2014, obtained his ALTP on August 24, 2015,
and his command training letter was issued on November 21,
2016; (ii) respondent No. 8 also obtained his ALTP License on
October 28, 2015, and his command training letter was issued
on November 21, 2016; (iii) respondent No. 9 obtained his
ALTP License on February 13, 2012, and his command training
letter was issued on September 9, 2014. She stated that vide
Establishment Order dated July 16, 2015 respondent Nos. 5
and 6 were upgraded to the Grade of E-5. Thereafter vide
Establishment Order dated January 27, 2016 respondent Nos. 7
& 8 were also upgraded to the E-5 Grade. She argued that
despite being aware that batchmates of petitioner No.5 were
being upgraded to the E-5 Grade, no efforts were made by
petitioner No.5 to obtain his ALTP License.
31. She stated that in the year 2015 the Executive Director
(Personnel) of respondent No.2 issued Circular dated August
27, 2015, wherein a grace period of 6 months as a one-time
measure was provided to the Co-Pilots of Wide-Body Aircraft
who would be completing three years and two months of service
for passing the ALTP papers and it was amply clarified that
such an extension was only available till January 31, 2016.
Thereafter on June 19, 2017, vide letter no. HOP/06-4381A/585
a new Career Progression Circular being Policy/Ops/001/3
providing harmonisation of seniority lists of Pilots engaged
from different streams was effectuated. The new Career
Progression Circular in Clause 10 clearly stipulates that in all
cases where notional command is given to a Pilot, all efforts
will be made to give him / her priority for command training
even if it were to mean overlooking the 1:1 ratio as well, as it
did not lead to more Pilots getting notional command.
32. Accordingly, in continuation of its earlier Circular dated
August 27, 2015, another Circular dated July 13, 2017, was
issued by the General Manager (Personnel), i.e., respondent
No. 4, wherein the date for non-affecting the seniority of Co-
Pilots of Wide-Body Aircraft was extended from January 31,
2016, to June 30, 2017. She stated that it is the case of the
respondent Nos. 6 to 9 that all the Pilots were duly notified of
the Circular dated August 27, 2015, which the petitioners have
also admitted in their representations dated December 14, 2017,
July 9, 2017 and November 6, 2017. The petitioners have also
admitted, that the office of the Executive Director (Ops.) had
explained the new rule of passing the ALTP papers within the
timeframe of three years and two months. It is also her case that
the ALTP examination takes place every three months and has
no upper limit for the number of attempts that an individual can
take. According to her, the petitioners have attempted the
ALTP papers only in the month of July 2017, which is clearly
after the expiry of the extended timeline of June 30, 2017, and
the result thereof was declared on July 31, 2017 and September
30, 2017 for written and oral examinations respectively.
33. Ms. Roy concluded her arguments by stating that merely
being senior is not an entitlement for restoration of original
seniority in higher posts when the petitioners have been wilfully
negligent, for which the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 cannot be
penalised. She stated the petitioners who are only five in
number have delayed in obtaining their ALTP License whereas
the impleaded respondents being 150 in number, already had the
information about the said requirement and cleared the ALTP
papers within the given timeframe.
34. Mr. Vivek Kohli, learned Sr. Counsel with Ms. Bharti
Chawla appeared on behalf of Pilots of erstwhile Air India being
respondent Nos. 57, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 79,
128, 132 & 149, submitted that the grading system for Pilots
comprises of three Grades, i.e., (i) E4 - First Officer without
ALTP; (ii) E5 - First-Officers with ALTP (Captain Grade); (iii)
E6 - Commander. He agreed with Mr. Sen's submission
inasmuch as a Pilot who joins the Company as a First-Officer
gets the E-4 Grade and upon passing the ALTP papers within
the cut-off date and on informing the company gets promoted to
the Grade of E-5. After taking his turn for command training
and on completing the same, he gets the E-6 Grade after which
he becomes a Commander.
35. Mr. Kohli also agreed with the arguments advanced by
Mr. Sen that the respondent No.1 had provided a deadline for
clearing the ALTP papers and that these Pilots were only to be
considered for placement to the Captain's Grade on completion
of three years and two months of service. The Memorandum
also provided for eventualities which would not affect the
seniority of the Pilots. The earlier deadline for clearing the
exam before January 31, 2016, was extended to June 30, 2017.
The seniority of Pilots who cleared the ALTP papers before the
end of June 2017 remained unaffected and the same formed the
E-5 Grade list. However, those who cleared the ALTP papers
after the extended deadline were subsequently added to the
bottom of the E-5 Grade list. The seniority of the Pilots who
cleared the examination after June 30, 2017, was asserted in
accordance with the date on which the Pilot informed
respondent No.1 about the successful result of the ALTP papers.
These Pilots then entered the E-5 Grade and the seniority therein
is in the sequence, of them having cleared the papers and
informing respondent No.1.
36. Mr. Kohli stated that the respondents / Pilots have
followed due process. They first accessed the various circulars
which were available on the online crew portal. The
respondents / Pilots cleared the ALTP papers before the pre-
determined deadline and achieved the E-5 Grade. The seniority
of these respondents / Pilots thus remained unaffected in the
new list, which came out on December 31, 2017.
37. Mr. Kohli has also argued that the petitioners were well
aware of the Circular dated August 27, 2015, which has
provided for a cut-off date for clearing the ALTP papers, which
he stated has also been admitted by the petitioners in their own
petition. The acknowledgement of the said memo is also seen
in their representations. Among them is one such representation
dated June 14, 2016, which is more than one year before the cut-
off date, i.e., June 30, 2017. The petitioners being aware of the
cut-off never cleared the examination before the deadline.
Resultantly they were placed after other Pilots in terms of the
seniority list issued in December 2017. It is only these five
petitioners who have taken a stand that they did not receive
information regarding the internal note. According to him, the
petitioners want to march over the 150-200 Pilots who had duly
cleared the ALTP papers before June 30, 2017, and given
seniority. The petitioners also want to be placed above other
Pilots in order to acquire command training prior to them which
would clearly be contrary to the seniority list.
38. Mr. Kohli points to the fact that most of these Pilots have
finished their training and have been serving as Commanders
for many years now, the prayers as made cannot be granted. The
other Pilots including some of the petitioners are in line to start
their command training soon. He stated that the current dispute
arises out of the policy of the respondent No.1 and no adverse
orders can be passed against it.
39. Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, learned Sr. Counsel with Ms. Urvi
Mohan appeared for the Indian Commercial Pilots Association
('ICPA', for short) who has been impleaded as respondent vide
order dated April 05, 2021. Mr. Ghose has made similar pleas
as made by Mr. Sen and Mr. Kohli and to an extent by Mr.
Lohia concerning the regime for granting ALTP License and the
position which existed prior to the date of merger of the
erstwhile Air India and Indian Airlines. He stated that on
various occasions, ICPA has demanded that the cut-off date of
Career Progression Policy must be taken as April 01, 2007,
which was the date of merger which was also adopted by the
Committee. Despite demand by the ICPA for a common
seniority list, the same was turned down by the Committee. Mr.
Ghose submitted that the Career Progression Policy dated June
19, 2017 was a demand of both the ICPA and the IPG and a
Committee was constituted vide order dated January 27, 2016 to
look into the matter. This, Mr. Ghose stated to point out the
fact that the Management, Pilots as well as the Workmen from
both sides were well represented, including the present
petitioners through the IPG and they were informed about the
salient features of Career Progression Policy as well as
increased grace period of three years and two months; the
petitioners were fully aware of the discussions taking place and
had also made their submissions. The seniority of Pilots who
had joined between April 1, 2007 and January 1, 2012 were left
to be managed by Air India. He stated that the period of three
years and two months from date of release was kept in order to
motivate Pilots to learn flying techniques. It was envisaged that
respondent No.1 would benefit through the additional filter
whereby only capable Pilots would proceed to the command
list. This provision regarding three years and two months
amongst others of the Career Progression Policy was
incorporated in the Operations Manual as well.
40. Mr. Ghose argued that if the present petition is allowed, it
would affectively mean that the Policy read with the Circular
dated July 13, 2017 which is now being followed by respondent
No.1 would be rendered otiose. This Policy has been introduced
in the merged entity, i.e., respondent No.1 on the
recommendation of the Committee. He stated that most of the
petitioners have joined the services of Air India only after the
date of merger. He stated that four of the petitioners took about
8-10 years to clear the ALTP papers. It has been mentioned in
the impleadment application of ICPA and so contended by Mr.
Ghose that the extra grace period given (over and above three
years two months) was also given to all in List-B (erstwhile Air
India First-Officers) which was not extended to First-Officers of
List-A (erstwhile Indian Airlines Pilots) and List-C (Fixed Term
Contract Pilots).
41. He stated if this petition is allowed, it would in effect
shall amount to granting a short-cut to the petitioners and other
Pilots who have already availed the benefit of the grace period
as well as the reservation of about 108 slots as per the Career
Progression Policy at the cost of member Pilots of ICPA (List-A
and List-C). The same would allow the petitioners to get a
direct access to the command seat of a Wide-Body Aircraft,
detrimental to the interest of Pilots in List-A.
42. Mr. Ghose has relied on the order dated May 28, 2014 in
Indian Commercial Pilots Association v. Air India Ltd. and
Ors. W.P.(C) 295/2012 of a Coordinate Bench of this Court and
order of the Supreme Court in Indian Commercial Pilots
Association v. Air India Ltd. and Ors., SLP (C) 13046/2012
dated May 02, 2012 to state that an equal number of Pilots were
allowed to be trained on B-787 Wide-Body Aircraft after
examining the aspect of equal treatment of Pilots of Indian
Airlines and erstwhile Air India.
43. Mr. Lohia in his rejoinder submissions has argued that the
Wage Agreement was valid and subsisting till June 19, 2017,
which was at the relevant time applicable to the Pilots of
erstwhile Air India. He stated that the respondent Nos. 6 to 9
have themselves forged / fabricated an e-mail by removing the
date stamp of the e-mail which included the information that it
was from respondent No.1 to the petitioners. He stated that a
comparison of this e-mail with the original makes the forgery
amply clear.
44. He has submitted the determination of seniority in a
tabular format to show the prejudice caused to the petitioners:
No. Petitioners' Petitioner's Petitioner's Juniors' Name Junior's Junior's Junior started
Name position in the position in the position in position in Command Trg.
Original List New List the Original the New
List List
01. Capt. Sarthak 235 203 Capt. Allister 236 58 July 2018
Khandelwal Henriques
02. Capt. Govindra 234 207 Capt. Allister 236 58 July 2018
S. Hunjan Henriques
03. Capt. Irshad 307 208 Capt. Jayant 310 101 March 2019
Dhafrani Singh
04. Capt. Virender 319 211 Capt. Inder 320 107 July 2019
Pal Singh Singh Sangha
05. Capt. Pranao 179 205 Capt. Aftab 182 19 February 2018
Ramteke Dhingra
Petitioner Date of Passing ALTP Date of License Junior Started Command Training
No.1 31.07.2017 08.03.2018 July 2018
No.2 06.09.2017 12.03.2018 July 2018
No.3 06.09.2017 13.12.2017 March 2019
No.4 06.09.2017 19.01.2018 June 2019
No.5 06.09.2017 10.11.2017 Nov 2017
No. Petitioners' Attempt Dt. of Result Dt. of Issue of Pilot Junior to Serial Junior
Name of ALTP of ALTP ALTP Petitioner No. started Command Trg.
Exam Exam License
01. Capt. Sarthak July 2017 31-Jul-2017 08-Mar-2018 Capt. Allister 58 July 2018
Khandelwal Henriques
02. Capt. July 2017 06-Sep-2017 12-Mar-2018 Capt. Allister 58 July 2018
Govindra S. Henriques
Hunjan
03. Capt. Irshad July 2017 06-Sep-2017 13-Dec-2017 Capt. Jayant Singh 101 March 2019
Dhafrani
04. Capt. July 2017 06-Sep-2017 19-Jan-2018 Capt. Inder Singh 107 July 2019
Virender Pal Sangha
Singh
05. Capt. Pranao July 2017 06-Sep-2017 10-Nov-2017 Capt. Aftab 19 February 2018
Ramteke Dhingra
45. Mr. Lohia has argued that the new list created by the
respondents in the Captain's Grade, based on back dated career
progression dated July 19, 2017, cannot be equated with the
original list which was for command upgrade from First
Officers based on Wage Agreement. Even the Career
Progression Policy dated June 19, 2017 protects the petitioners'
seniority as the petitioners were recruited before January 01,
2012.
46. Mr. Lohia has prayed that the petitioners' seniority be
reinstated and they be paid arrears and back wages to
compensate for their loss of Command-time and remuneration
and that the petitioners be returned to their original fleet, i.e.,
Boeing where all junior Co-Pilots have been trained and have
gained command. He also prays that the petitioners be directed
to begin with their command training on Wide-Body (Boeing)
Fleet with immediate effect.
47. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused
the record and the written submissions filed by them, the issue
which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the
decision of the respondent No.1 for affecting the placement /
seniority of co-pilots / First Officers of Wide-Body Aircraft in
Captain's Grade, as they have not passed ALTP papers, before
the cut-off date(s) had the effect, on their promotion as
Commander, is justified.
48. Though, Mr. Sen had taken an objection that the remedy
for the petitioners is to approach the Labour Court under the
provisions of ID Act as Pilots being workmen, I am not
impressed by the submission made by Mr. Sen for the simple
reason that the remedy of writ jurisdiction is not barred, rather it
is an efficacious remedy.
49. Having noted the grievance of the petitioners, who are
five in number, their challenge is primarily to a circular initially
issued by the respondent on August 27, 2015. The relevant part
of it reads as under:
"xxxx xxxx xxxx
In this regard, we would like to inform you that
the matter was put up to CMD for his
consideration. It has however, been approved as a
ONE TIME exercise that the Co-Pilots of Wide
Body will be considered for placement to
Captain's grade ONLY on completion of 03 years
and 2 months' of service and on passing ATPL
Papers and their date of placement to Captain's
grade will also be effective as per
recommendations of JDC / IARC, their seniority
will however, not be affected in case they do not
pass ATPL papers within 3 years and 2 months
and the same will be maintained as per their
erstwhile seniority as Co-Pilot.
The above dispensation of non-affecting of
seniority for a period of 6 months shall however,
be applicable to those Co-Pilots of Wide Body who
would be completing 3 years and 2 months of
service and passing ATPL Papers up to 31st
January, 2016.
The seniority of Co-Pilots who would be
completing 3 years and 2 months of service and /
or will be passing ATPL papers after 31.01.2016,
will be fixed as per recommendations of JDC /
IARC, as being done in case of Captain's grade of
Narrow Body.
xxxx xxxx xxxx"
(emphasis supplied)
50. After the above circular was issued, respondent No.1 Air
India had issued two more circulars dated June 19, 2017 and
July 13, 2017. The former being the Career Progression Policy
for pilots, the relevant Clauses being 8 to 11 are reproduced as
under:
"xxxx xxxx xxxx
8. Company may induct P2 based on specific
fleet requirement and the option of shifting from
right to left may also be exercised subject to laid
down regulatory rules.
9. If a junior pilot is taken for commanding
overlooking the senior pilot the affected pilot will
be eligible for Notional Command as per letter No.
HDDO2/Policy-HR(Ops)/217 dated 17.11.2016.
10. In all cases where Notional Command is
given to pilot all efforts will be made to give him /
her priority for command training even by
overlooking the 1:1 ratio as long as it does not
lead to more pilots getting notional command.
11. So far, a First Officer is eligible for
promotion to Captain's grade subject to:
• Clearing of all ALTP papers
• Completion of 3 years and 2 months from
the date of First Officer Check.
Further a Co-pilot is eligible for PIC upgrade
subject to having obtained Captain's grade as
above and in possession of 2750 hours total flying
experience.
In view of the reduction in flying experience
criteria to 2250 hrs. for PIC upgrade, the criteria
for Captain's grade is proposed to be changed to:
• Clearing of all ALTP papers
• Completion of 2 years and 6 months from
the date of First Officer Release check, so
that the Airline is not restricted from
offering PIC upgrade to the Co-pilot who is
eligible for Command.
xxxx xxxx xxxx"
51. Similarly, vide circular dated July 13, 2017, respondent
No.1 had extended the grace period from January 31, 2016 to
June 30, 2017 for not affecting the seniority of the First Officers
to clear the ALTP papers. The basic ground on which the
petitioners have sought the prayers as noted above is that the
Circular dated August 27, 2015 though required to be
communicated, was not communicated to the individual Pilots /
petitioners. The plea of Mr. Lohia was, had the respondent
No.1 communicated the same to the petitioners, they would
have cleared the ALTP papers before the cut-off date of January
31, 2016. That apart, it was the submission of Mr. Lohia that
Circular issued on July 13, 2017 fixing the date as June 30,
2017 for clearing the said papers could not have been achieved
as the Circular dated July 13, 2017 had a retrospective effect.
52. It is the conceded case of the petitioners that they have
cleared ALTP papers in the month of September, 2017, i.e., two
months after the cut-off date of June 30, 2017.
53. Though I find, respondent No.1 has not placed on record
any evidence to show that circular dated August 27, 2015 was
brought to the notice of each and every Pilot / petitioners, but
the plea of Mr. Sen that circular was uploaded on ARMS Portal
coupled with the fact, as contended by Ms. Roy that except 5
petitioners, 150 respondents have obtained / cleared the ALTP
papes within the timeframe prescribed, indicates that the
Circular was notified and / or was in the knowledge of all.
54. The plea of Mr. Lohia by showing the relevant page of
portal to contend that all circulars w.e.f. 2014 have been
uploaded except August 27, 2015 shall not help the case of the
petitioners as I find that the page of the portal only depicts the
information uploaded between September 9, 2015 till October
29, 2015. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that pursuant to
e-mail dated September 1, 2015, the circular was uploaded on
ARMS Portal. That apart, I agree with the submission made by
Mr. Sen by drawing my attention to Page 56 of the paper book
to contend that even as per the Wage Agreement, as prevalent
earlier, it is clear that command training will be offered as per
line seniority only to pilots possessing ALTP License. Any pilot
bypassed for command training due to non-possession of ALTP
License cannot have any claim for his / her original seniority on
obtaining ALTP License. In other words, securing the original
seniority at the First Officers Level for further progression was
subject to a Pilot possessing an ALTP License.
55. In the present case, the only difference being, the First
Officer must possess ALTP papers (not ALTP License) coupled
with three years and two months service for being given grade
of E-5, i.e., Captain's Grade and not clearing ALTP papers shall
have a bearing on the seniority in that grade. This is on the
principle, whosoever obtains ALTP papers, subject to
completing three years and two months of service shall be given
E-5, Captain's Grade earlier, which would determine the
seniority in that grade. That apart I find, that as per Justice
Dharmadhikari Report as submitted on January 31, 2012 itself,
it was proposed that three years and two months plus not
clearing ALTP papers within the stipulated period, a pilot shall
lose his seniority and in fact on November 18, 2014, itself the
IPG has drawn the attention of all its First Officer Members to
clear the ALTP papers with utmost urgency and communicate
the same to the company as any First Officer who did not pass
ALTP papers shall stand to lose seniority.
56. It is also a conceded position that as per the DGCA
Regulations, a pilot can appear in ALTP papers for three times
in a year. In other words, liberty was with the First Officers /
petitioners to avail the benefit of clearing ALTP papers any
time they wish but subject to their completing 1500 flying
hours. The petitioners knowingly well, having not appeared in
the examination and clearing the ALTP papers, surely depict
that the same is their own making. If the petitioners have not
cleared the ALTP papers before the cut-off date, the same shall
have consequence / effect on the seniority. No submission has
been made by Mr. Lohia with regard to fixing of the cut-off
date of June 30, 2017 as arbitrary. In fact, vide circular dated
July 13, 2017, respondent No.1 had to be given the benefit of
grace period to all those First Officers who have cleared the
ALTP papers between February 1, 2016 till June 30, 2017, i.e.,
the pilots who have obtained the license in the last 1½ years.
57. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the power and
right of the employer to frame rules including the rule of
seniority and promotion in the manner suitable to its
organization and the Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority
over the decision of the employer. No doubt, the effect of
losing seniority is drastic as the future progression of the
petitioners gets delayed, but I find that the policy dated July 19,
2017 also contemplates a situation if a junior is taken for the
post of Commander, overlooking the senior pilot, the affected
pilot will be eligible for notional command. I have been
informed by Mr. Sen that the petitioners are getting the benefit
of notional command even though persons junior to them in the
original seniority list as First Officers have undergone the
command training. Even the plea of Mr. Kohli is that most the
respondent Pilots have undergone their training and are ready to
take the mantle of PIC / Commander of the Plane, shows it is
too late in the day for this Court to interfere in the impugned
action. The Supreme Court in the case of Hardev Singh v.
Union of India and Anr. (2011) 10 SCC 121 in paragraph 25
has stated as under:
"25. In our opinion, it is always open to an employer to
change its policy in relation to giving promotion to the
employees. This Court would normally not interfere in
such policy decisions. We would like to quote the decision
of this Court in Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana
[(1999) 3 SCC 696] where this Court had held in para 4
of the judgment that:
"4. ... When a policy has been declared by the State as
to the manner of filling up the post and that policy is
declared in terms of rules and instructions issued to
the Public Service Commission from time to time and
so long as these instructions are not contrary to the
rules, the respondents ought to follow the same."
58. One of the submissions of Mr. Lohia was that the
petitioners reached the 1500 hour flight experience benchmark
only around September 2016 as they were gaining around 300-
350 hours or fewer in a year as the long-haul flights have
multiple sets of Pilots because of which the flying hours get
divided and there are also longer layovers of 2-3 days and 5-6
days as against other Pilots who got ALTP License / cleared
papers prior to the petitioners as they were on other fleets and
were accruing around 800 and 1000 hours of flight experience
in a year which resulted in the juniors superseding the
petitioners. I am not impressed by this submission of Mr.
Lohia. In fact, the plea of Mr. Lohia is contradictory inasmuch
as on one hand he stated that the petitioners could complete the
1500 hour flight experience benchmark around September
2016. But on the other hand, stated, had the Circular issued on
August 27, 2015 (much before September 2016) been brought
to the notice of the petitioners they could have passed the ALTP
papers before the cut-off date on January 2016.
59. That apart, at no point of time, had the petitioners made
any representation(s) that because of the above stated facts, the
petitioners were unable to meet the requirement of 1500 flying
hours to appear in the ALTP papers. The representation dated
June 14, 2016 by some of the petitioners was that they were
unable to achieve the 2750 flying hours for the purpose of
Command training. It is not their case in the writ petition that
because of the aforesaid pattern of flying they could not
complete the 1500 hours between August 27, 2015 - January
13, 2016 or even till June 30, 2017 because of which they could
not appear in the ALTP papers.
60. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any merit in
the petition. The petition is dismissed. No costs.
CM Nos. 23779/2018, 41436/2018, 33912/2020 & 8843/2021
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
OCTOBER 25, 2021/jg
