Madhya Pradesh High Court
Savio Noronha vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6708
1 WP-18575-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 18575 of 2022
SAVIO NORONHA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal Senior Advocate with Shri Alabhya
Bajpai - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Anoop Nair - Senior Advocate with Ms. Ritika Chouhan -
Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.16468/2023 - an application for dismissing the
petition.
2. It is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that a similar issue
was considered by this Court in W.P. No.1759/2013 (S.D. Tiwari & Another
v. Union of India & others) and the writ petition was dismissed vide order
dated 18.09.2013 against which the writ appeal was filed being W.A.
No.970/2013. There was no interim order granted by the appellant authority.
The writ appeal too was dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2023 for want of
prosecution and there is no restoration of writ appeal till date therefore the
judgment passed by the Single Judge has attained finality.
3. The case of the petitioner is for grant of seniority from the date of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6708
2 WP-18575-2022
merger. One such an issue has already been considered and decided in the
earlier round of litigation. The principles of res judicata will be applicable to
the case in hand. Therefore, no second petition is permissible.
4. Per contra counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently opposed
the application contending therein that the challenge in the earlier round of
litigation was to the order dated 10/17.10.2012 passed by the respondent
No.1 whereby direction was given to place the seniority of merged
employees and officers of International Airport Authority of India and
National Airport Authority from the date on which the common recruitment
and regulations in Airport Authority of India were implemented. It is argued
that there is no consideration of the question with respect to date of grant of
seniority from the date of merger. The merger has taken place in the year
1994. Therefore, once the question has not been dealt with in the earlier
round of litigation, the principles of res judicata will not be applicable. He
has prayed for dismissal of I.A. No.16468/2023.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. On perusal of the record it is seen that this petition has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) - To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the--
respondents to fix the date of merger for fixation of inter se seniority
Officer and other employees of International Airport Division and
National Airport Division on the appointed day as per Sections 3 (1) of
Airport Authority of India Act 1994 with effect from 01/04/1995, as
recommended as per Justice J.D. Jain Committee Report.
(ii) - To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents draw seniority as per the date of panel made on merit at
the time of appointment for employees recruited after the appointed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6708
3 WP-18575-2022
day, with consequential fixation of inter se seniority as well as revision
of seniority of the employees given promotion subsequent to
01/04/1995 on adhoc basis and accordingly to consider the Petitioner
for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager based on
integrated inter se seniority with all consequential and other attendant
benefits.
(iii) - To grant any other relief deemed fit under the facts and
circumstances of the instant petition."
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the Airport Authority of India came
in force in the year 1994. Prior to establishment of Airport Authority of
India by virtue of 1994 Act, the activities were controlled by Director
General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). After the implementation of the Act of
1994 a final merger of two establishments took place from 01.04.1995 and in
terms of Section 18 of the Act, every officer or other employees of IAA &
NAA become officer or employee of IAD from the date of their appointment
i.e. 01.04.1995. However, there was some dispute with respect to
determination of the seniority and the service benefits of the employees of
both the organizations. Therefore, the Union of India has taken a decision to
constitute a Committee headed by Justice J.D. Jain. The Committee headed
by Justice J.D. Jain gave the report on 28.02.1997 (Annexure P/1).
8. Another Committee was constituted to resolve the issue of inter se
seniority under the Chairmanship of Shri S. Krishna Moorthy who submitted
the report pointing out the fact that the date of effect of combined list can be
any date after 01-02-2005. However, even after submission of Shri S.
Krishna Moorthy's Committee report no finality has been attained with
respect to fixation of inter se seniority. Therefore, another Committee of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6708
4 WP-18575-2022
three members headed by Shri Alok Sinha was constituted for o determine
and fix the inter se seniority of the employees of erstwhile NAA & IAAI.
The third Committee has gone into the the report submitted by Justice J.D.
Jain's Committee and Shri Krishna Moorthy's Committee and gave the final
report.
9. In the earlier round of litigation the issue which came up for
consideration before this Court was challenge to the order dated
10/17.10.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby direction is given to
fix the seniority of merged employees and officers of International Airport
Authority of India. The Court considered the relevant arguments advanced
by the parties and in paragraph 17 has held as under:-
"17. The only dispute is with respect to the date of effect of merger i.e. the
answer to the second question which is given in paragraph 2.6.4 by the said
committee. The Committee deliberated, took certain developments subsequently
taken into consideration and made a categorical observations in para 2.6.8 of the
report saying that the date of merger should be 1st of August 2009 when the date of
option prescribed in the special VRS Scheme had come to an end. This
particular recommendation was not accepted by the respondent Central Government
and only this much of the part of the order is sought to be challenged in the present
petition. The law is well settled in this respect as has been referred to
herein above. If the seniority is not to be disturbed and total length of service is
required to be taken, the date of merger cannot be anything else than the date of
coming into force of the Act itself. In fact, the merger had taken place virtually
on Notification of the AAI. Therefore, it was incorrectly discussed by Alok Sinha
Committee that the date of merger would be something else when specially
recommended for grant of seniority taking into account the services rendered. It
was. also incorrectly, considered that by a prospective date of merger, the possibility
of future dispute will come to an end or would be minimise. It was irrational to
consider that those who have opted for VRS and have already left the establishment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6708
5 WP-18575-2022
of AAI would again wake up and start claiming service benefits in case the
retrospective seniority is granted to them. In any case, even if such issue is raised,
that was to be considered by the Courts or the authorities only when the VRS is set
aside or revoked. In light of the settled law that once an option to retire has been
given, duly accepted by the competent authority, it cannot be recalled or challenged,
such an observation of the Alok Sinha Committee was misnomer. Though these
aspects have not been discussed in the note sheet placed by the interveners on
record, but after careful examination of the note sheet, it reveals that if from the
date of regulation though may not be full regulation in terms of the provisions of the
1994 Act, the date of inter se seniority after the merger is fixed or the benefit of
common seniority is. extended, it cannot be said that any right of persons
like' petitioners would be prejudicially affected. Thus, since there is adequate
safeguard with respect to the past services rendered by persons like petitioners, since
there is sufficient protection granted to the persons like petitioners, it is incorrect to
say that even if the date of merger is retrospectively fixed, any adverse impact
would fall on them."
10. The dispute with respect to effect of date of merger was considered in
the earlier round of litigation. Under these circumstances, the arguments
advanced by the respondent/counsel appears to be correct. The matter has
already been adjudicated in the earlier round of litigation. Under these
circumstances, the judgment passed in the case of S.D. Tiwari & Anr. (supra)
is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. Merely the fact that
petitioner is not a party in earlier round of litigation cannot be the sole
ground to re-open the entire controversy. The fact remains that the legal
aspect has been considered and decided in the earlier round of litigation.
Therefore, the judgment passed in the case of S.D. Tiwari & Anr. (supra)
will be applicable in the case of the petitioner also. The case of the petitioner
will be covered in terms of the observations made by this Court in the case
of S.D. Tiwari & Anr. (supra).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6708
6 WP-18575-2022
11. Under these circumstances, this petition is disposed off in terms of
observations made by this Court in the case of S.D. Tiwari (supra). I.A.
No.16468/2023 stands disposed off.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
