{"id":132637,"date":"1993-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993"},"modified":"2018-08-10T14:33:01","modified_gmt":"2018-08-10T09:03:01","slug":"c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993","title":{"rendered":"C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, Supl. (1) 454<\/div>\n
Author: Ahmadi<\/div>\n
Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nC.P. KALRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAIR INDIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/04\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nANAND, A.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 454\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t  ORDER\n<\/p>\n
1.Under\t a Promotion Policy evolved by Air India on  June
\n15,  1988,  promotions to various managerial  posts  in\t the
\nhierarchy  had\tto  be\tfinalised  in  terms  thereof.\t The
\nappellant,  who joined Air India on May 12, 1964  as  Junior
\nTraffic Assistant, was duly promoted to the next higher post
\nof Assistant Station Superintendent on October 1, 1979.\t  He
\nwas  seeking  promotion to the next higher post\t of  Station
\nSuperintendent\tbut  he\t complains that on  account  of\t the
\nchange in the promotion policy in June 1988 he has been kept
\nout   from  promotion  even  though  his  record  has\tbeen
\nthroughout  good.  He complains that he has been  stagnating
\nas Assistant Station Superintendent since his appointment to
\nthat post in 1979.\n<\/p>\n
2.It  is  true\tthat  the promotion  policy  underwent\ta
\nchange\tin  June  1988.\t According to the  said\t policy\t the
\npromotion from the post of Assistant Station  Superintendent
\nto  Station  Superintendent  had to be on  the\tcriteria  of
\nmerit-cumseniority.   Rule  2.3\t of  the  Promotion   Policy
\nprovides  that\tonly those employees will  be  eligible\t for
\nbeing  considered  for promotion, who, on the  date  of\t the
\nmeeting\t of  the Promotion Committee or earlier,  have\tbeen
\nconfirmed  in the post, in the scale of pay next  below\t the
\nscale  of  pay of the post to which the promotion is  to  be
\nmade.  The zone of consideration is set out in Rule 2.4. The
\nbasis  for promotion is to be found in Rule 2.5.  This\tRule
\ninter  alia  states that the basis for\tpromotion  would  be
\nmerit-cum-seniority;   merit   to  be  determined   by\t the
\nperformance  and conduct of an employee in the post held  by
\nhim  and  an  assessment of  the  employee’s  potential\t for
\ndevelopment   to   shoulder  higher   responsibilities\t and
\nseniority to prevail after meritorious candidates have\tbeen
\nidentified.  According to Rule 2.5.3, the revised  promotion
\npolicy\tprovides  for a selection  criteria  which  suitably
\nbalances  merit and seniority, so as to ensure\tthat  higher
\npositions  are\tfilled\tby  Officers  possessing   requisite
\nqualities  and attributes.  The process of determination  of
\nmerit  is  set\tout  in\t Rule  2.6  which  states  that\t all
\npromotions    from   the   level   of\tAssistant    Station
\nSuperintendent\/equivalent categories and above will be based
\non  the overwhelming consideration of merit which should  be
\nobjectively  assessed by measuring the abilities,  qualities
\nand  attributes of the employee necessary for the  promotion
\npost.\tThis  merit  has to be determined on  the  basis  of
\nAnnual\tPerformance Appraisal Reports, personal\t records  as
\nwell  as personal interview.  Out of a total 100  marks,  60
\nmarks are reserved for Annual Performance Appraisal  Reports
\nand  40 marks for personal interview.  Rule 2.6.2  indicates
\nthe  factors  and  points to be\t assessed  at  the  personal
\ninterview.    The   factors   mentioned\t  are\tprofessional
\nknowledge,   managerial\t ability,   communication   ability,
\ninterpersonal  skills\/general  awareness  and\tprofessional
\nqualifications\trelevant  to the job attained while  in\t the
\ngrade held immediately before promotion.  The marks assigned
\nfor the last three are 5 each and for the first and
\n457<\/span>
\nthe second 15 and 10, respectively.  Rule 2.6.4 states\tthat
\nthe marks secured by an employee on the basis of ratings  in
\nthe  Annual  Performance  Appraisal  Reports  and   Personal
\nInterview will be added together and those who have obtained
\n70 marks or more would be considered suitable for promotion.
\nAfter  the  candidates found suitable for promotion  on\t the
\nbasis of merit are thus identified, they have to be arranged
\nin the order of their inter se seniority in the panel  which
\nwould operate for one year.  This in brief is the  promotion
\npolicy discernible from the document placed on record.\n<\/p>\n
3.Briefly stated, the promotion policy is that\tpromotion
\nto the post of Station Superintendent shall be on the  basis
\nof merit-cum-seniority, merit to be determined on the  basis
\nof  the assessments found in the Assessment Reports as\twell
\nas  the\t performance at the interview.\t The  minimum  marks
\nrequired  for  being  empanelled  is  70  per  cent.   If  a
\ncandidate  gets less than 70 per cent he is  not  considered
\nsuitable  for  promotion  to the  next\thigher\tpost.\tFrom
\namongst\t the  candidates who have secured 70  per  cent\t and
\nabove, a list has to be prepared in the order of their inter
\nse seniority regardless of the marks secured and  promotions
\ngiven according to their placement in the panel.\n<\/p>\n
4.Thus\tafter the merit of each candidate  is  determined
\nand those found meritorious are identified, seniority  plays
\na  role at the stage of empanelment.  This is the thrust  of
\nthe  promotion\tpolicy\tintroduced in 1988 with\t a  view  to
\nstrengthening the managerial cadres.\n<\/p>\n
5.The appellant appeared at the interview in 1989 and  it
\nappears that he secured a total of 65.67 marks i.e. he\tfell
\nshort  of the minimum requirement of 70 per cent  marks\t for
\nbeing  entered\tin  the\t list  of  candidates  suitable\t for
\npromotion  to  the  next  higher  post.\t  Having  thus\tbeen
\nunsuccessful in securing promotion, he filed a writ petition
\nin  the\t High Court challenging the decision to\t refuse\t him
\npromotion,  being Civil Writ Petition No. 1048 of  1990.   A
\nDivision  Bench\t of  the  High\tCourt  considered  the\tmain
\nargument,  namely, that 40 per cent marks reserved  for\t the
\ninterview was excessive and contrary to the ratio laid\tdown
\nby  this Court in a number of decisions beginning from\tAjay
\nHasia v. Khalid Mujib1 and<\/a> ending with Ashok Kumar Yadav  v.
\nState  of Haryana2.  The High Court took the view that\tthis
\nCourt had clarified that there can be no hard and fast\trule
\nregarding  the precise weight to be given to the  viva\tvoce
\ntest  as  against the weight to be given  to  the  appraisal
\nreports\t and  hence, in the absence of allegations  of\tmala
\nfides  it  could  not be said that weightage  given  to\t the
\ninterview  test was capable of being arbitrarily  exercised.
\nIn this view that the High Court took, it dismissed the writ
\npetition and hence the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
6.Mr  Rajeev Dhavan, learned counsel for  the  appellant,
\nput  forward  three  submissions in  the  main.\t  His  first
\ncontention  was that the viva voce test which I reserves  40
\nper  cent marks for the purpose of assessment of merit,\t was
\nin  fact  not to assess the merit of the  candidate  but  to
\neliminate  candidates  and, therefore, it did not  meet\t the
\nrequirement  of the law laid down in the decisions  referred
\nto by the High Court as well as other decisions cited before
\nus, namely, Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab3, Munindra
\nKumar v. Rajiv Govil4 and
\n1    (1981) 1 SCC 722: 1981 SCC (L&S) 258
\n2    (1985) 4 SCC 417: 1986 SCC (L&S) 88
\n3    (1991) 1 SCC 662: 1991 SCC (L&S) 555: (1991) 16 ATC 495
\n4   (1991) 3 SCC 368: 1991 SCC (L&S) 1052: (1991) 16 ATC 928
\n458<\/span>
\nIndian Airlines Corpn. v. Capt.\t C.C Shukla5.  According<\/a>  to
\nhim  such  exclusive  interview\t requirement  being   wholly
\ndisproportionate to the level for which selection has to  be
\nmade  can only be described as unfair, arbitrary and  wholly
\nunconnected to the object of the exercise.  We do not  think
\nthat  there is any merit in this submission.  The  promotion
\npolicy\tclearly\t envisages that merit shall be\tthe  primary
\nconsideration  for promotion to the next higher post.\tOnce
\nthe  candidates falling within the zone are tested  for\t the
\npurpose\t of  determining their merit on the basis  of  their
\nperformance emanating from the appraisal reports as well  as
\ntheir  performance  at the interview, the  total  number  of
\nmarks  secured, if not less than 70 per cent, would  entitle
\nthe  candidate\tto  be placed in the  group  of\t meritorious
\ncandidates  suitable for promotion to the next higher  post.
\nOnce  this  group of meritorious candidates  is\t determined,
\ntheir arrangement in the select list has to be on the  basis
\nof  the\t inter se seniority.  This method of  assessing\t the
\nmerit of the candidate cannot be said to be, in any  manner,
\narbitrary or one which has no relevance to the object to  be
\nachieved.  The basic idea under the promotion policy is that
\nthe managerial post should be manned by candidates of  merit
\nand  once meritorious candidates are  identified,  seniority
\nwould  assume  relevance for the limited  purpose  of  their
\nplacement in the panel.\t It is true that on the basis of the
\nappraisal  reports and the grading given to each  candidate,
\nmarks are assigned out of 60 marks.  Out of the remaining 40
\nmarks, marks are assigned to each candidate on the basis  of
\nthe performance at the interview.  If a candidate secures 70
\nper cent and above he is taken to be meritorious enough\t for
\npromotion to the next higher post.  We see nothing arbitrary
\nin the method of determining merit.  We, therefore, find  it
\ndifficult  to agree with the learned counsel that  the\tsole
\npurpose of interviews is only to eliminate candidates.\tWhen
\ncandidates  having  merit are to be chosen,  any  method  of
\nchoice\temployed  will necessarily eliminate  those  without
\nmerit.\tA cut-off line has to be drawn for determining merit
\nand  in\t this  case it is fixed at 70 per  cent.   There  is
\nnothing\t  arbitrary,   unfair  or   irrational\t about\t the
\nprescription   of   the\t minimum   eligibility\t marks\t for
\nempanelment.  We, therefore, reject this contention.\n<\/p>\n
7.It  was  next submitted that the promotion  policy  was
\nunconstitutional  as  the marks assigned for  the  interview
\ntest  were far in excess of the permissible norm  or  limit.
\nThe 40 per cent prescription for interview is based on\tRule
\n2.6  of the promotion policy.  This 40 per cent\t is  divided
\nunder different heads or factors as stated hereinabove.\t The
\nsubmission  of\tthe learned counsel for the  petitioner\t was
\nbased  on  the\tobservations of this Court  in\tAshok  Kumar
\nYadaV2 wherein this Court observed that 33.3 per cent  marks
\nreserved for oral test were excessive and would suffer\tfrom
\nthe  vice of arbitrariness.  The High Court has\t dealt\twith
\nthis  submission and has pointed out that no hard  and\tfast
\nrule can be evolved in this behalf because much would depend
\non  the job requirement for each post and the level  of\t the
\npost.  A whole line of decisions were brought to our  notice
\nbeginning  from Ajay Hasia case’ but it would be  sufficient
\nfor  us to refer to the latest decision in the\tcase  Indian
\nAirlines  Corpn. v. Capt.  K.C Shukla5.\t In<\/a> that  case\tthis
\nCourt after referring to the decisions in Ajay Hasial,\tLila
\nDhar6,\tAshok Kumar Yaday2 and Rafiquddin7 observed  that  a
\ndistinction
\n5 (1993) 1 SCC 17: 1993 SCC (L&S) 114: (1993) 23 ATC 407
\n6   Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan,<\/a> (1981) 4 SCC 159:\t1981
\nSCC (L&S) 588
\n7 State of U.P. v. Rqfiquddin, 1987 Supp SCC  401 :1988\t SCC
\n(L&S) 183: (1987) 5 ATC 257
\n459<\/span>
\nappears\t  to  have  been  drawn\t in  interviews\t  held\t for
\ncompetitive   examination   or\tadmission   in\t educational
\ninstitutions  and selection for higher posts.  Efforts\thave
\nbeen made to limit the scope of arbitrariness in the  former
\nby  narrowing  down the proportion as  various\tfactors\t are
\nlikely to creep in, but the same standard cannot be  applied
\nfor  higher  selections and this is clearly brought  out  in
\nLila  Dhar case6.  It is, therefore, clear that\t this  Court
\nwas also of the view that no hard and fast rule can be\tlaid
\ndown in these matters because much would depend on the level
\nof the post and the nature of the performance expected\tfrom
\nthe  incumbent.\t In that case the method of  evaluation\t was
\nbased 50 per cent on ACRs and 50 per cent on interviews\t and
\nthis  Court upheld the said method notwithstanding the\tfact
\nthat the weightage for interview performance was as high  as
\n50  per\t cent.\t We are, therefore, of\tthe  view  that\t the
\ncontention  that because in the instant case  the  weightage
\nfor the viva voce test is 40 per cent, it is perse
\nexcessive and hence arbitrary, cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
8.Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in  Atul
\nKhullar v. State of J & K8counsel  argued  that\t it  was
\nincumbent  on  the respondent to maintain  and\tproduce\t the
\nrecord in regard to the interview test to satisfy this Court
\nthat no arbitrariness had crept in.  In that case this Court
\nobserved in paragraph 20 as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  find it necessary, however, to  emphasise
\n\t      that a Selection Committee conducting the viva
\n\t      voce  test should maintain the entire  record,
\n\t      including\t the original work-sheets  on  which
\n\t      the  marks have been recorded by\teach  member
\n\t      separately,  for a minimum period of one\tyear
\n\t      after  the examination.  Failure to do so\t can
\n\t      strengthen an allegation of mala fides against
\n\t      the Selection Committee.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  may be mentioned that no allegation was made  before  us
\nthat  the decision of the Selection Committee was mala\tfide
\nand  therefore the question of strengthening the  allegation
\ndoes  not arise.  We may also state that all that  has\tbeen
\npleaded\t in  the  pleadings before this Court  is  that\t the
\nSelection  Committee  -devoted\thardly\ta  few\tminutes\t for
\ninterviewing  each  candidate and, therefore, there  was  no
\neffective application of mind and the entire viva voce\ttest
\nwas  farcical.\t In the counter that has  been\tfiled,\tthis
\nallegation  has been denied and it has been  contended\tthat
\nbetween\t 20 and 30 minutes were devoted per candidate on  an
\naverage\t and,  therefore, there was an\teffective  interview
\nundertaken  for\t assessing the merit of each  candidate.   A
\nselection  process cannot be interfered with on\t such  vague
\nallegations   made  by\tan  unsuccessful   candidate.\t We,
\ntherefore, do not see any merit in this contention also.\n<\/p>\n
9.Having applied our mind to the contentions urged by the
\nlearned counsel, we have not been able to take the view that
\nthe  selection process was in any manner vitiated and  hence
\nwe see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with  no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
8 1986 Supp SCC 225: 1986 SCC (L&S) 608
\n460<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, Supl. (1) 454 Author: Ahmadi Bench: Ahmadi, A.M. (J) PETITIONER: C.P. KALRA Vs. RESPONDENT: AIR INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/04\/1993 BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) ANAND, A.S. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 454 ACT: HEADNOTE: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nC.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-10T09:03:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-10T09:03:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993\"},\"wordCount\":2225,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993\",\"name\":\"C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-10T09:03:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-10T09:03:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993","datePublished":"1993-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-10T09:03:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993"},"wordCount":2225,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993","name":"C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-10T09:03:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-p-kalra-vs-air-india-on-8-april-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.P. Kalra vs Air India on 8 April, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132637","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}