{"id":200588,"date":"1999-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999"},"modified":"2016-01-06T05:10:50","modified_gmt":"2016-01-05T23:40:50","slug":"bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 268, 82 (1999) DLT 697, 1999 (51) DRJ 729<\/div>\n
Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: M Sharma<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. <\/p>\n
1.     By  this  common judgment and order I propose to dispose  of  all  the aforesaid  petitions as common issues are involved in all  these  petitions and similar grounds were urged before me.\n<\/p>\n
2.   In these petitions the petitioners have contended that the  respondents have not complied with and \/or blatantly voilated and disobeyed the  directions  issued by this court in the judgment and order passed by this  court on  9.5.1997  in various writ petitions including civil Writ  Petition  No. 413\/1994. Number of petitioners filed writ petitions in this court contending  inter  alia that the petitioners had been repeatedly  approaching  the respondents  for  their  appointment in view of their  empanelment  in  the select  panel for appointment to various posts under the  respondents.  According  to them all the petitioners were selected pursuant to  the  advertisement made by the respondents and they were empanelled, which panel  was approved  by the Competent Authority on 20.11.1990. It was  also  contended that  although they had been approaching the respondents to give  them  appointment  in  terms of their empanelment and not to make  any  appointment outside the select panel, they were not appointed  even on casual basis.\n<\/p>\n
3.   This  court heard all the writ petitions and by order  dated  9.5.1997 held the action of the respondents to be arbitrary in the matter of  preparation of panel of casuals and directed the respondents to engage on causal basis  for its requirement either for the purpose of ad hoc appointment  or on casual basis firstly the persons according to the merit from out of  the select panel prepared and approved on 20.11.1990. It was also directed that taking select panel as prepared and approved on 20.11.1990 as the base  the respondents would offer employment on ad hoc\/casual basis to the  petitioners according to their merit in the select panel and the respondents  would continue to engage them till posts are filled up on regular basis. In order to  appreciate  the directions of this court the operative portion  of  the judgment is extracted below : –\n<\/p>\n
     “In view of the above while holding the respondents’ action to be arbitrary in the matter of preparation of the panel of casuals in the  category  of Helper (Engg.), Helper (Comml.),  Helper  (MT), Helper  (Stores), Drivers, Helper (Canteen),  Helper  (Catering), Safaiwalas, Peon etc. respondents are directed to (I) engage,  on casual  basis for its requirement either for the purposes  of  ad hoc employment or on casual basis firstly the persons according to the  merit from out of the select panel prepared and approved  on  20.11.1990.  Only  when  after due intimation  the  persons  will decline  to  work on casual basis that the  respondents  will  be  entitled  to engage persons from outside the panel. So long  such   of  the  persons,  whose names appear in the  select  panel,  are  prepared  to work on casual basis, till appointments are made  on  regular  basis, respondents will not discontinue  them.  Persons, whose  names  appear in the select panel if  deployed  on  casual basis or ad hoc basis will be replaced only by regular  employees  employed  on  regular bais and not by any  other  casual  worker. Taking  the  select panel as the base the  respondents  now  will offer  employment  on  ad hoc\/casual basis  to  the  petitioners, according to their merit in the select panel. All such  petitioners whose names appear in the select panel and are interested  to  work  on casual basis or on ad hoc basis will report to  the  respondents  within  a period of fifteen days from today.  The  respondents  will continue to engage them till posts are filled  on  regular  basis. With these directions, writ petitions stand  disposed of. ”\n<\/p>\n
4.   The petitioners filed the present petitions contending inter alia that the  respondents  have blatantly violated the aforesaid directions  by  not giving  them appointment in spite of the fact that they had  complied  with all the directions by reporting to the respondents. The respondents  however, contested the aforesaid allegations of the petitioners contending inter alia  that  in compliance of the directions in the aforesaid  judgment  the respondents  duly  informed the casuals and invited applications  from  all those whose names appear on the select panel for preparing a seniority list for  the purpose of engaging casuals of daily rated basis in  the  respondents. It is also stated that the respondents are engaging casuals on  daily rated  basis strictly from amongst those whose names appear on  the  select panel according to their seniority position in the panel. It is also stated that as soon as the turn of the petitioners mature the petitioners would be duly considered for such appointments.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, appearing for the petitioners submitted that  from the  nature of the directions issued by this court it is  established  that the said directions were applicable only in respect of the petitioners  who approached this court by the aforesaid writ petitions and therefore,  while giving appointments in accordance with the seniority position in the  merit list  only the writ petitioners cases are to be considered and not  of  the other  persons who although were empanelled did not approach this court  by writ petitions. She also submitted that the respondents have been  engaging contractors  and taking services from persons through the  contractors  for their  requirement without exhausting the select panel in voilation of  the orders  passed  by this court. In support of the aforesaid  contention  the petitioners referred to the agreement entered into by the respondents  with M\/s.  Neha  International. She submitted that engagement  of  persons  from
\nprivate  agencies and not engaging the petitioners is in blatant  voilation of  the  orders passed by this court. She has also drawn  my  attention  to individual  instances as mentioned by the petitioners in  their  additional affidavit. She has submitted that Shri Bala Datt and Shri Manoj Kumar  were engaged on daily wage basis although they were not empanelled in the  panel of  1990. She has also stated that Shri M. Raju was appointed on  permanent basis  as  MT Helper. Similar other instances which are  mentioned  in  the aforesaid affidavit were also brought to my notice.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Mr. Jaitley, on the other hand appearing for the respondents submitted that the interpretation sought to be given by the counsel for the petitioners to the directions given in the said judgment of this court is erroneous for  the  judgment was applicable not only to the petitioners  but  to  all those whose names were empanelled in the select panel prepared and approved on  20.11.1990, and therefore, even though the persons who were  empanelled did  not approach this court by writ petition their cases cannot  be  overlooked.  He also submitted that the respondents have awarded  contracts  to private  contractors  for  providing labour on casual basis  prior  to  the aforesaid orders passed by this court and therefore, the directions are not applicable to private contracts for providing labour on casual basis, which is  taken for handling facilities to a number of foreign Airlines. He  also submitted  that the aforesaid contracts were awarded for supply of  utility hands  for loading and unloading jobs only at Indira  Gandhi  International Airport as the manpower required for loading\/unloading for foreign airlines fluctuates  from  day to day and they were entered into much prior  to  the litigation in question. He also submitted that the aforesaid contracts were valid for 3 years and the term has expired but the persons employed by  the said  contractors have filed writ petitions in this Court and in this  connection he has referred to the writ petition filed by the persons  employed by  M\/s.  Neha International which was registered as C.W.P.  3330\/1999,  in which  this court has granted injunction restraining the  respondents  from disengaging  the said persons. He also submitted that the  individual  instances  referred to by the petitioners have no relevance at all  with  the allegations made.\n<\/p>\n
7.   In  the  light  of the aforesaid submissions and  the  records  placed before me, let me consider whether the actions of the respondents could  in any manner be said to be in violations and\/or disobedience of the orders of this  Court. The interpretation sought to be given by the petitioners  that the  directions  issued by this court on 9.5.1997 are  applicable  only  in respect  of the writ petitioners and not to others who were  empanelled  in the  panel prepared and approved on 20.11.1990 when read in the context  of the  operative  portion of the order passed by this court is  found  to  be fallacious.  The  Division Bench of this court  specifically  directed  the respondents  to engage on casual basis for its requirement either  for  the purpose of ad hoc employment or on casual basis firstly the persons according  to  the merit from out of the select panel prepared  and  approved  on 20.11.1990. The aforesaid directions, therefore, relate to all the  persons included  in  the select panel and not to the writ petitioners  alone.  The aforesaid  intention  also becomes apparent and clear when  the  subsequent part  of the order is read, wherein it was said that the  respondent  would offers  employment on ad hoc\/casual basis to the petitioners  according  to their  merit in the select panel. It thus gave a direction to the  respondents  to  adhere  to the merit position in the select panel  and  to  offer employment on ad hoc\/casual basis to all the persons therein including  the petitioners.  In the light of the aforesaid direction the respondents  have taken steps to appoint all those who were empanelled on the basis of  their seniority positions. They have also stated in their reply that while giving appointment  they  are  strictly following the seniority  position  in  the panel.  In that view of the matter it cannot be said that  the  respondents have  in any manner voilated and\/or disobeyed the orders of this  court  by
\noffering employment to all the persons empanelled in accordance with  their merit position in the said panel.\n<\/p>\n
8.   With  regard to the next contention of the learned  counsel  appearing for the petitioners that the respondents instead of employing the petitioners  in  compliance  to order dated 9.5.1997 are  employing  casual  labour through  contractors and private agencies, the petitioners have  placed  on record  the  agreement  of the respondents entered into with  one  of  such private contractors namely with M\/s. Neha Interantional. A bare perusal  of the said agreement would indicate that the said agreement was entered  into on 12.2.1996 i.e. prior to the date of the aforesaid orders passed by  this court. The said agreement was valid for a period of 3 years i.e. 12.2.1999. The  respondents  have  also referred to other such  contracts  which  also appear  to have been entered into prior to the date of the judgment  passed by  this court. It was also brought to my notice that the persons  employed through  private  contractors  for loading\/unloading jobs  only  at  Indira
\nGandhi  International Airport in order to facilitate the number of  foreign airlines have filed a petition in this court which is registered as  C.W.P. No. 3330\/1999. On perusal of the records of the said case I find that  this court has passed an interim order in favour of the said employees restraining the repondents from dis-engaging them from their present engagement.\n<\/p>\n
     The  aforesaid contracts for supply of utility hands  for  loading\/unloading  jobs  only at IGI Airport are stated to be meant only  for  coping with  the  handling  facilities in respect of foreign  airlines  and  their requirement  fluctuates from day to day. It is also stated that  such  jobs are not perennial in nature and could be only for a few hours in a particular  day.  As  the aforesaid contracts engaging  private  contractors  were entered into by the respondents prior to the order passed by this court  it cannot  be  said that the respondents in any manner flouted the  orders  of this court by engaging such persons through the contractors in terms of the aforesaid contracts.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The petitioners have referred to certain instances alleging engagement of  persons  from  outside the aforesaid panel. According  to  the  counsel appearing  for  the  petitioners the Alliance Air is a  sister  concern  of Indian  Airlines  and therefore, the directions issued by this  court  were equally  applicable to the said Alliance Air also and the  petitioners  are also  entitled to be appointed in the vacancies in the said Airlines  also. It is an established fact that Alliance Air is a separate legal entity  and engagement  of persons by the said airlines cannot be said to be  relatable to  the  orders passed by the Division Bench of this court  in  respect  of Indian  Airlines.  In that view of the matter, any engagement made  by  Alliance  Air to their Airlines for the purpose of coping up with their  handling  jobs  cannot be said to be in voilation and\/or disobedience  of  the orders passed by this court.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Reference  was also made to the appointment of Shri M. Raju,  who  was appointed  on  permanent basis as MT Helper. Shri Raju was appointed  as  a regular employee of the respondents in the course of special drive to  fill up  backlog  of Scheduled Caste regular vacancies and his  appointment  was prior to the aforesaid judgment of this court. In respect of other individual cases cited by the petitioners, the respondents have shown by filing  a counter affidavit thereto that none of the said instances could be said  to be  appointments in voilation of the orders of this court. The  respondents have categorically stated that they have been engaging casuals strictly  in accordance with the orders passed by this court and that no juniors in  the select panel nor any outsider has been appointed by violating and\/or  willful disobedience of the orders of this court.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Considering  the  facts as stated above and the  documents  placed  on record,  I  am satisfied that the respondents have in no  manner  committed contempt  of  this  court. No violation and\/or disobedience  of  the  order passed by this court has been established by the petitioners. The petitions have no merit and are dismissed accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999 Equivalent citations: 2000 IAD Delhi 268, 82 (1999) DLT 697, 1999 (51) DRJ 729 Author: . M Sharma Bench: M Sharma ORDER Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of all […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999 - 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\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-05T23:40:50+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-05T23:40:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2343,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999\",\"name\":\"Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-05T23:40:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999 - 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\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-05T23:40:50+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-05T23:40:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999"},"wordCount":2343,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999","name":"Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-05T23:40:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhagat-singh-and-others-vs-indian-airlines-another-on-5-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhagat Singh And Others vs Indian Airlines & Another on 5 October, 1999"}]},{"@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\/200588","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=200588"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200588\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}