Telangana High Court
K.Krishna Mohan Rao, Hyderabad And 5 Ors vs Indian Airlines Ltd., N.Delhi And 4 Ors on 25 February, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 11773 OF 2005
O R D E R:
The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the
action of respondent in not paying attendant service benefits
attached to the post of Senior Technical Assistants of Technical
Cadre though they are entitled for the same in terms of
judgments of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 8090 of
1992 dated 16.11.1999 and Writ Petition No. 6760 of 2001
dated 03.09.2001 confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 1433 of 2001
dated 19.06.2002 as arbitrary and illegal. Further, a declaration
is sought that petitioners are entitled for attendant benefits as
retained in the schedule.
2. On receipt of notice, respondents filed counter-
affidavit denying the allegations and explaining the reasons for
not entitlement of the benefits as sought by petitioners.
3. Heard Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior
Counsel on behalf of Sri N.Bharat Babu, learned counsel for
petitioners.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Ms.
V.Uma Devi has brought to the notice of this Court the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mr. R.S.
Madireddy v. UOI 1, wherein it is observed that respondent
Organization i.e. AIR India Limited is a Statutory Body under
the Air Corporations Act, 1953. With the repeal of 1853 Act by
the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1994, the
Air India merged with Indian Airlines and consequently,
respondent Organization became a wholly Government-owned
Company, thus came under the category of other authorities'
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
However, on 08.10.2021, the Government of India has
announced that it had accepted the bid of Talace India Pvt. Ltd.
to purchase its 100% shares in respondent Organization.
Thereafter, on 27.01.2022, the share purchase agreement was
signed with Talace India Pvt. Ltd., wherein 100% equity shares
of the Government of India in AIR India Limited were purchased
by Talace India Private Limited and thereby, respondent
Organization was privatized and disinvested by the Government
of India. Consequently, respondent Organization ceased to be a
State or its instrumentality within the ambit of Article 12 of the
Constitution. Once respondent Organization is ceased to be
2024 SCC Online SC 965
covered by the definition of 'State', it could not have been
subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution as the Article itself would make it abundantly clear
that direction, orders or Writs including the Writs in the nature
of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto and
Prohibition to any authority of State or instrumentalities of
State, but not to a Private Limited Company.
5. Therefore, this Writ Petition, which was instituted
on 23.01.2005, by which time the respondent Organization was
already privatized, is not maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
6. It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
under:
"37. The respondent No.3 (AIL), the erstwhile Government run
airline having been taken over by the private company Talace India Pvt. Ltd.,
unquestionably, is not performing any public duty inasmuch as it has taken
over the Government company Air India Limited for the purpose of
commercial operations, plain and simple, and thus no writ petition is
maintainable against respondent No.3 (AIL).."
7. Learned Standing Counsel further brought to the
notice of the Court that writ petition was instituted against Air
India, subsequently which has been renamed as Air India,
however, no cause title was amended. Therefore, she submitted
that no Writ Petition lies against Indian Airlines as well as Air
India which is a private owned company.
8. In view of the above settled proposition of law, this
Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition filed
against AIR India as not maintainable.
9. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed, granting
liberty to petitioner to approach appropriate Forum for redressal
of their grievance, as per law. However, it is needless to mention
that it is always open for respondents to consider
Appeals/representations filed by petitioners, in accordance with
law. No costs.
10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
25th February 2025
ksld
