{"id":63860,"date":"1999-07-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-07-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999"},"modified":"2018-09-30T03:06:51","modified_gmt":"2018-09-29T21:36:51","slug":"roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999","title":{"rendered":"Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines … vs Government Of India on 12 July, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines … vs Government Of India on 12 July, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: K Ramamoorthy<\/div>\n
Bench: K Ramamoorthy<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
K. Ramamoorthy, J.<\/p>\n
1.     In  CAP.  931\/98,  the  petitioners  have  prayed  for  the  following
\nreliefs:-\n<\/p>\n
     “In  the  circumstances mentioned above, it is  most  humbly  and  respectfully  prayed  that this Hon’ble Court may  graciously  be  pleased to:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     a)  Issue  appropriate writ in the nature of  certiorari  or  any  other writ, direction or order setting aside the Notification\/Fax  message No. HPDO1\/C-1201 dated 2nd February, 1998 or other  notiications of similar nature which are likely to be issued in near  future,  whereby the respondents have deprived or are  likely  to   deprive  the  petitioners  of their right to  be  considered  for promotion  on the post of Manager (Commercial) from the  post  of  Deputy  Manager (Commercial) as the same are illegal,  arbitrary, discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of  the
\n     Constitution of India;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     b) Issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any  other appropriate  writ, direction or order commanding the  respondents to  consider the petitioners for their promotion on the  post  of  Manager (Commercial) from the post of Deputy Manager (Commercial)  against the vacancies which are in existence or which are  likely  to  occur  in  near future in Indian Airlines  along  with  other  eligible candidates;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     c)  Issue  an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus  or  any  other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to give all the benefits to the petitioners for the purpose of seniority, promotion, foreign posting, etc. in Vayudoot as well as in Indian  Airlines after the merger.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.   In CWP.723-98, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n
     “In  the  circumstances mentioned above, it is  most  humbly  and  respectfully  prayed  that this Hon’ble Court may  graciously  be   pleased to:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     a)  Issue  appropriate writ in the nature of  certiorari  or  any other  writ,  direction or order  quashing  the  Notification\/Fax message No.HPDO1\/C-1201 dated 2nd February, 1998 or other notifications  of similar nature which are likely to be issued in  near  future,  whereby the respondents have deprived or are  likely  to  deprive  the  petitioners  of their right to  be  considered  for promotion  on the post of Manager (Commercial) from the  post  of  Deputy  Manager (Commercial) as the same are illegal,  arbitrary,  discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of  the
\n     Constitution of India;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     b) Issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any  other  appropriate  writ, direction or order commanding the  respondents   to  consider the petitioners for their promotion on the  post  of Manager (Commercial) from the post of Deputy Manager (Commercial) against the vacancies which are in existence or which are  likely  to  occur  in  near future in Indian Airlines  along  with  other  eligible candidates;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     c)  Issue  an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus  or  any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to give all the benefits to the petitioners for the purpose of seniority,   promotion, foreign posting, etc. of the services rendered by them  in Vayudoot.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.   The main grievance of the petitioners is that they were all working in Vayudoot Limited and the Vayudoot was taken over by Indian Airlines and the petitioners in CWP. 931\/98 and petitioners 2 to 4 in CW. 723\/98 are working as  Deputy Managers (Commercial) in the ‘Short Haul Operations  Department, Indian  Airlines, whereas the Indian Airlines had invited only  the  Deputy Managers (Commercial) working in Indian Airlines for the purpose of considering them for promotion to the post of Manager (Commercial). According  to the petitioners, they should also have been invited to appear for interview as  they are, in law, doing the same work as that of Deputy Managers  (Commercial)  in  Indian Airlines, and the discrimination made  by  the  Indian Airlines is invidious.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Before I notice the rival contentions of the parties, a few facts have to be narrated for providing a backdrop, as it were.\n<\/p>\n
5.   In  the  year 1981, Vayudoot Limited, in which  the  petitioners  were working,  was  incorporated as a private limited company. In 1983,  it  was converted  into  a public limited company. On the 25th of  May,  1993,  the Government  of  India  wrote to the Indian Airlines,  Air  India,  Vayudoot Limited,  International Airports Authority of India, the National  Airports Authority  of India proposing for reorganisation of Vayudoot  Limited.  The letter reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “I  am  directed  to say that a proposal  for  reorganisation  of      Vayudoot  had  been under consideration of  Government  for  some time. It has now been decided as under :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  Vayudoot  should be merged with Indian Airlines  instead  of retaining the present form of joint ownership by Indian  Airlines and Air India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) The dues owed by Vayudoot to creditors in the public sector, such as banks, other public enterprises and Central Government on the  date of takeover by Indian Airlines would remain frozen  for ive  years.  There will thus be a moratorium for five  years  on repayment  and servicing of the dues; thereafter the  liabilities will  be discharged by Indian Airlines in 10 annual  instalments.  In case of a delay in payment of any instalment, interest at  the  bank  rate prevailing at that time, would be payable on  the  defaulted amount.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.   Government  have further decided that pending completion  of legal  formalities for merger of Vayudoot with  Indian  Airlines, the following measures need to be taken:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  Equity shares of Vayudoot Limited held by Air India will  be transferred  in favour of Indian Airlines on a  token  consideration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) Vayudoot will be retained as a clearly identifiable separate Division of Indian Airlines.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.   On the 22nd of November, 1993, a notification was issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation & Tourism in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
     “I  am directed to refer to the minutes of the meeting  taken  by    the Minister for Civil Aviation & Tourism on 8th October, 1993 to  review the functioning of all organisations under the  Department of  Civil  Aviation. In the meeting it was decided that  AI,  IA,  NAA, PHHL, IGRUA and HCI will absorb, on an over-riding priority, the  surplus staff of Vayudoot against their vacancies set  aside for  direct recruitment including the posts for reserved  categories.\n<\/p>\n
     2. You are, therefore, requested to inform Vayudoot of the vacancies  that are available in your organisation against  the  sanc tioned strength within a week, under intimation to this Ministry.  Vayudoot  will then circulate the names of the employees  to  the  concerned organisations.”\n<\/p>\n
7.   On  the  24th of May, 1994, the Ministry of Civil Aviation  &  Tourism issued  the following order relating to the process of absorption of  Vayudoot employees in various organisation. The same reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “Government have decided that the process of absorption of  Vayudoot employees organisations under the Ministry of Civil Aviation  should begin by 30th June, 1994 positively. As a special case, it  has been decided to give the following relaxation\/benefits to the Vayudoot employees on joining the new organisation:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1)  Protection of basic pay.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  Probation period and medical examination will be waived.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  Appointment  will  be subject to three  years’  satisfactory
\n     record of service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)  Leave  balance of the employees will be transferred  to  the new organisation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5)  Service  rendered in Vayudoot will be reckoned for the  purpose  of  Gratuity, Provident Fund, loans and  advances,  medical facilities and SOL passages.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   On  the same date, the 24th of May, 1994, the Ministry of Civil  Aviation  & Tourism also issued an order constituting a Committee  to  over-see the absorption process of Vayudoot employees. The order reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “It  has been decided to constitute a Committee to  over-see  the absorption  process  of Vayudoot employees.  The  Committee  will  consist of the following.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1. Sh. Prashant Mehta, Director, <\/p>\n
        Ministry of Civil Aviation<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     2. Sh. S.C. Rastogi, Director (Persl.) <\/p>\n
        Indian Airlines.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. Sh. P.C.K. Ravindran, Ex. Director, <\/p>\n
        (P&A) N.A.A.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. Sh. J.J. Rindani, Director(HRD), <\/p>\n
        Air India, Bombay.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5. Sh. N.V. Sridhar, Ex. Director, <\/p>\n
        (Personnel) IAAI.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6. Sh. S.D. Arora, Ex. Director, <\/p>\n
        Vayudoot.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7. Sh. S.N.A. Jaffery, Chief Manager <\/p>\n
        (Corporate Affairs), Vayudoot,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Convenor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8. Cap. A.N. Azami, Officiating R.M., <\/p>\n
        Vayudoot.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9. Sh. S.P. Shukla, Sr. Traffic Asstt.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Vayudoot.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  Committee  will ensure the implementation of  conditions  of absorption  as  stipulated  in  this  Ministry’s  Order  No.  Av. 18030\/28\/91-ACVL(Pt) (i), dated 24th May, 1994.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.   On the same date, the 24th of May, 1994, the Vayudoot Limited issued a circular with reference to creation of a separate department in the  Indian Airlines  called the ‘Short Haul Operations Department’. The same reads  as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
     “It  has been decided to create a separate Department  in  Indian Airlines, called the `Short Haul Operations Department’, for  the proposed  absorption. Vayudoot employees, in accordance with  the  guidelines of the Department of Civil Aviation. The main criteria for the absorption is as follows :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1) Employees so absorbed in this Department will be given Indian Airlines’  Pay scales and other benefits being enjoyed by  Indian  Airlines employees.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  There  will be no inter-Departmental  transfer  between  the  Department  mentioned above and other Departments in Indian  Air-ines.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  Indian  Airlines Recruitment & Promotion Rules  as  well  as Service  Conditions\/other  Rules will apply to employees  of  the  newly created Department.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)  On  absorption  of employees of Vayudoot  in  the  aforesaid Department,  the Basic Pay drawn by the employees will be  fitted  at an appropriate stage of Basic Pay applicable to the comparable scale of pay of Indian Airlines.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5)  For  those  employees  who presently  possess  a  particular  designation  but do not have the requisite length of service  for  such  a  post,  in accordance with Indian  Airlines’  Rules,  the  following procedure will be followed:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     i) Basic Pay will be protected.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ii) The persons concerned will be given the designation commensurate  with  his\/her length of service and that  designation  will  remain  till  he\/she puts in the length of  service  required  in  accordance with the Rules of Indian Airlines.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Any  problem  that  may arise after the  absorption  of  Vayudoot  employees  into the ‘Short Haul Operations Department’ of  Indian  Airlines, shall be referred to a Committee consisting of:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     i)  Sh. S.D. Arora, <\/p>\n
     Ex.Director, Vayudoot Ltd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ii) Sh. S.N.A. Jaffery, <\/p>\n
     Chief Manager(Corporate Affairs) <\/p>\n
     Vayudoot Ltd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iii) Sh. Sekhar Ghose,  <\/p>\n
     Sr. Dy. Industrial Relation Manager <\/p>\n
     Indian Airlines, <\/p>\n
     Sh.S.N.A.Jaffery will be the Convener of the Committee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This issues with the concurrence of the Managing Director.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.  On  the 29th of November, 1994, the fourth petitioner in  CWP.  931\/98 was  issued with an order of appointment on absorption. It is only just  to show  how  the Indian Airlines issued orders of appointment.  The  same  is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
     “In  accordance with circular No. PF\/HQ\/PERS dated 24th May’,  94  issued  by  the  Executive Director,  Vayudoot  Limited,  we  are  pleased to appoint you on absorption as DEPUTY MANAGER COMMERCIAL  in the Short Haul Operations Department of Indian Airlines Limited with effect from 1.12.1994 on the terms and conditions  speci fied below :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1.   You  will get a starting basic pay of Rs. 2585\/- per  mensem  in  the pay scale of Rs. 2225-60-2825-70-3035-120-3755  plus  the  usual allowances admissible to the employees, from time to time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.   During  the tenure of your service in the Short Haul  Operations  Department, Indian Airlines Limited, you will be  governed  by  the  applicable Service Regulations and  Standing  Orders  as framed\/amended by Indian Airlines Limited from time to time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.   You  will be initially posted at HEAD QUARTERS.  During  the tenure  of your service, you are liable to be transferred to  any  Station where Short Haul Operations Department of Indian Airlines  Limited operates or may operate hereafter. You will not be transferred to any other Department of Indian Airlines Limited. Howev er,  your  services may be utilised in other  Departments  for  a  limited period as required due to exigencies of work.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.   Your  seniority will be maintained separately in  the  Short  Haul  Operations  Department of Indian Airlines Limited  and  the  same will be determined as per existing rules.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.   Leave  standing to your credit in Vayudoot Limited  will  be  transferred  to  the Short Haul Operations Department  of  Indian Airlines Limited. Your service in Vayudoot Limited will be  reckoned  for  the  purpose of Gratuity, Provident  Fund,  Loans  and  Advances, Medical Facilities and SOL passages.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.   In case you belong to SC\/ST\/OBC, you are required to produce  a  certificate  in support of the same, issued by  the  competent authority  in  the format prescribed by the Government  of  India together  with  its  attested  copies.  If,  at  any  stage,  the caste\/tribe\/class  certificate  submitted by you is found  to  be false, appropriate action will be taken against you.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.   In  case  you  belong to SC community, any  change  in  your religion  at  any stage should be immediately intimated  to  your  Departmental Head.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.   Your  services with Vayudoot Limited will  stand  terminated from the date of your absorption in Indian Airlines Limited.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9.   If  the offer of appointment on the above terms  and  conditions  is  acceptable to you, please return to  us  the  attached  duplicate  copy  of this letter, duly signed, in  token  of  your acceptance  of this offer latest by 30th November,  1994.  Please send  your  joining report in token of your having  reported  for duty  in  the  Short  Haul  Operations  Department  on  or  after 1.12.1994 through your Regional Heads\/Departmental Heads.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.  There  are various dates on which letters of appointment  were  issued and  it  is not necessary to extract all of them. On the 7th  of  December, 1994, the Indian Airlines issued the letter mentioning functioning of Short Haul Operations Department in Indian Airlines. The same is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The  Short Haul Operations Department has been set up as a  distinct  and  separate  Profit Centre  and  has  become  functional w.e.f.1st of December, 1994.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Since this Department is to function as a separate Profit Centre, it  will  have its own Budget, Balance Sheets and Profit  &  Loss Accounts, which will be finally merged with the Corporate system.  The accounting systems will be finalised by the Director  Finance  and the Executive Director, Short Haul Operations Department.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This  Department will have a variety of sub-disciplines  such  as Engineering, Operations, Commercial, Personnel &  Administration, Finance, Stores, EDP, and Vigilance. It will have its own Delegation  of  Financial  and Administrative Powers  which  are  being worked  out  separately and, meanwhile,  the  Executive  Director (Short  Haul)  will  exercise the  Financial  and  Administrative  Powers, available to Group I Directors at headquarters.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     However,  for the following disciplines, the  respective  Departments of India Airlines will cater to the requirements of a Short Haul Operations Department:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i) Planning<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) Civil Engineering<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) Security<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) Internal Audit<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (v) Medical for Staff including CFMS\/REMS<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (vi) Public Relations<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (vii) Flight Safety<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (viii) Stores (Except local purchase) <\/p>\n
     Employees of the Short Haul Operations Department will be  eligible  for various facilities as are available to the employees  of  Indian  Airlines,  e.g. canteen, air passages,  uniforms,  loans,  advances, staff coach facility etc. <\/p>\n
     All the Departmental Heads at HQrs. and Directors in the  Regions are  requested to extend all cooperation to ensure  smooth  funcioning of the Short Haul Operations Department.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.  The petitioners in CWP. 931\/98 and petitioners in CW. 723\/98 have been orking  in ‘Short Haul Operations Department in Indian Airlines  and  they have  been receiving the pay and allowances as per the terms of  orders  of appointment  on absorption. As I had mentioned above, the  petitioners  are claiming  parity  with the Deputy Managers (Commercial) working  in  Indian Airlines. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have attempted to  project their case in their own way. In CWP. 931\/98, the petitioners have  referred to  the various proceedings issued by the Government of India,  the  Indian
\nAirlines  and  the Vayudoot Limited, and have stated that  in  ‘Short  Haul Operations Department, there are no activities at all. The petitioners  and persons similarly situated like the petitioners have been directed to  work in Indian Airlines in different departments under new terms and  conditions known as ‘secondment’.\n<\/p>\n
13.  It  is stated by the petitioners in paragraph 11 of the writ  petition in CWP. 931\/98:\n<\/p>\n
     “It  is  submitted in the circumstances  mentioned  above  though      admittedly  Vayudoot has been merged in Indian ines  all  the properties  belonging to Vayudoot including aircraft, all  assets  and liabilities including machinery, land space at Airports along with shares which Vayudoot was having earlier to its merger  have  been  transferred in favour of Indian Airlines. The employees  of Vayudoot  have also been absorbed in Indian Airlines.  The  peti tioners  on a term known as “secondment” have also been  directed  to work in various Departments of Indian Airlines. The Short Haul perations Department which was created at the time of the merger  of  Vayudoot  in Indian Airlines is not carrying  any  commercial
\n     activities.  The petitioners are thus working in various  depart ments of Indian Airlines since 1994 onwards and they have already completed about four years of service even in Indian Airlines and  their  services have been directed to be governed  by  regulation and standing orders as framed\/amended from time to time by Indian Airlines  Limited. However, merely to deprive the petitioners  of  their  right to get further promotions as has been given  to  the employees  similar  situated in different Departments  of  Indian  Airlines, the respondents illegally and arbitrarily created a new epartment  known as Short Haul Operations Department  (S.H.O.D.)  though  admittedly, this Department is carrying no commercial  or
\n     any  other type of activity and all the employeeshave  been  directed under the term “secondment” in other Departments of Indian Airlines. The net result is that though the petitioners have been  working  in  different  Departments of Indian  Airlines  since  a  period  of  about  3 to 4 years on the  post  of  Deputy  Manager  (Commercial) and they have also worked for a considerable  period  of 5 to 7 years in Vayudoot also, however, they have been  denied of  their  right to be considered for promotion on  the  post  of Manager(Commercial).  Some persons junior to the petitioners  who  were  promoted on the post of Deputy Manager two to  three  years  back have been directed to be considered for the post of  Manager   (Commercial)  against  the existing  vacancies.  The  petitioners  cannot be denied of their right to be considered for motion to   the post of Manager (Commercial) merely because a new  Department known as S.H.O.D. has been created by the  respondent, although,  the petitioners have been discharging their duties  in  different Departments in Indian Airlines under the terms “second- ment”. The said Department known as Short Haul Operations Department has been created merely to deprive the petitioners of  their  right  to have further promotion like their colleagues  in  other Departments  of  Indian Airlines, though this Department  is  not  carrying  commercial  or any other type of activities and  it  is  almost a nonest Department. The only function of this  Department  is  to issue salary cheques to the petitioners and other  persons  who  have  been absorbed in Indian Airlines after the  merger  of  Vayudoot in Indian Airlines.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.  It  is stated by the petitioners in paragraph 12 of the writ  petition n CWP. 931\/98:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is submitted that by creating a new Department known as Short    Haul Operations Department the respondents have caused stagnation in  the  service prospects of the petitioners  inasmuch  as  that since this Department is not carrying any activities there is  no likelihood  of  any progress promotion in service career  of  the
\n     petitioners.”\n<\/p>\n
15.  It  is stated by the petitioners in paragraph 15 of the writ  petition n CWP.931\/98:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is  submitted that even if it is assumed  that  the  service rendered  by  the  petitioners in Vayudoot is not  likely  to  be  reckoned for the purpose for the purpose of further promotion and  career progression the petitioners are entitled to be  considered for  their promotion on the post of Manager (Commercial)  on  the  basis  of  service rendered by them in  different  Department  of  Indian  Airlines  since the date of their  absorption  in  Indian  Airlines.”\n<\/p>\n
16.  About  the  calling  for applications for interview for  the  post  of anager  (Commercial), it is stated by the petitioners in paragraph  17  of the writ petition in CWP. 931\/98:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is submitted that in fact the purpose of the respondents  for  conducting  interview for promotion on the post of Manager  (Com-    mercial) from the post of Deputy Manager (Commercial) is only  to prepare  select panel likely to be operated for a further  period  of one year to fill up all the existing as well as the  vacancies  which  are  likely to occur in future. Thus, if  the  petitioners  hereinabove are allowed to be ignored, the petitioners are likely
\n     to  be denied promotion on the post of Manager  (Commercial)  for another  10 years as there is no likelihood that in  another  one decade  some more vacancies for the post of Manager  (Commercial) will  occur. Thus the petitioners would be denied their right  to  be  considered for promotion on the post of Manager  (Commercial)  for another 10 years in case they are allowed to be ignored  this  time.”\n<\/p>\n
17.  It  is stated by the petitioners in paragraph D of the grounds in  the CWP. 931\/98:\n<\/p>\n
     “Because at the time of merger of Vayudoot in Indian Airlines the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation has given  solemn  undertaking  and  assurance through various letters  as  well  as  absorption  letters issued to the petitioners that  the  services rendered  by them in Vayudoot shall be reckoned for all  purposes  including  for the purpose of their further promotion  in  higher scales  or grade. However, at present the respondents  are  going  back from their assurance given to the petitioners. The  respondents  are  bound by promissory estoppel. Once the  assurance  has  been given by the respondents, the respondents cannot be  allowed to back out from the undertaking\/assurance.”\n<\/p>\n
18.  Referring to the discrimination aspect, it is stated by the  petition-\n<\/p>\n
ers in paragraph E of the grounds in the CWP. 931\/98:\n<\/p>\n
     “Because the petitioners are entitled to carry on their  services rendered  by  them in Vayudoot with them in  Indian  Airlines  a Vayudoot  as a whole including its employees has been  merged  in Indian  Airlines. Neither the petitioners can be denied of  their  right to be considered for promotion in higher grade nor they can be  denied  of  their right to get the benefit  of  the  services  rendered by them in Vayudoot.”\n<\/p>\n
19.  The  petitioners would also state that at the time of merger of  Vayuot  Limited  with the Indian Airlines, the Ministry  of  Civil  Aviation, Government of India, had given a solemn undertaking and assurance that  the service  rendered by the petitioners and other similarly  situated  persons like the petitioners would be reckoned for all purposes, including  consideration  for promotion to higher scales and grades. The  petitioners  would assert  that  the services rendered by them in Vayudoot Limited  cannot  be ignored.  The  petitioners would submit that the  petitioners  being  fullfledged employees of Indian Airlines, cannot be treated, for the purpose of promotion, as if they are the employees of Vayudoot Limited.\n<\/p>\n
20.  In  the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2  to  5, referring to the various proceedings which had already been adverted to  by me, it is stated:\n<\/p>\n
     “Instructions of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the circular  of Vayudoot  and the offer of absorption from the Short Haul  Operations Department clearly provided for the following:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     i) Vayudoot would be retained as a clearly identifiable  separate  division  of  Indian Airlines called the ‘Short  Haul  Operations  Department’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ii) The services rendered in Vayudoot would be reckoned only  for the  purpose  of Gratuity, Provident Fund,  Loans  and  Advances,  Medical Facilities and SOL passages. Protection of basic pay  and transfer of leave balance was also provided.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iii) The seniority of Vayudoot employees absorbed in the SHOD  of Indian Airlines was to be maintained separately in the SHOD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     iv) Absorbed employees were not to be transferred to any  Department of Indian Airlines Limited and they were required to work in any  station where the SHOD was to operate. However, Indian  Airlines  could  utilise their services in other Departments  for  a limited period due to exigencies of work.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
21.  It is stated in the counter-affidavit:\n<\/p>\n
     “The  offer of appointment clearly stipulated the maintenance  of eparate seniority distinct from the mainstream employees.”\n<\/p>\n
22.  It is further stated in the counter:\n<\/p>\n
     “The Employees of Vayudoot Limited who were absorped\/appointed in the  Indian Airlines have been given the benefit of  Indian  Airlines  pay  scales and all benefits provided  for  in  Government instructions issued on the 24th of May, 1994”.\n<\/p>\n
23.  It is stated in the counter :\n<\/p>\n
     “I say that the issue of merger of seniority of employees in SHOD and  Indian  Airlines has been raised from time to time  and  has been a subject matter of discussions. The Secretary, Civil  Aviaion, Government of India has held meetings with  representatives  of  the  Manager of Indian Airlines, representatives of  SHOD  on 10th March, 1998 and thereafter on 23rd April, 1998. The Ministry had attempted to seek solutions for permanent absorption of  SHOD  employees  in  the mainstream of Indian Airlines  by  taking  one  category of employees at a time. In respect of pilots, a decision
\n     has been taken that the SHOD line pilots will undergo training on Indian  Airlines fleet and on getting the type endorsement,  they  will  be placed at the bottom of the seniority of First  Officers      (Co-pilots). However, their past services will be counted for pay  protection.”\n<\/p>\n
24.  With reference to Aircraft Engineers, it is stated in the Counter:\n<\/p>\n
     “In respect of Aircraft Engineers, a decision has been taken that Aircraft  Engineers of SHOD will undergo training on any  of  the Indian Airlines jet fleet as per requirement and after  acquiring  licence endorsement will be placed at the bottom of the seniority of Aircraft Engineer’s grade in the respective trades.”\n<\/p>\n
25.  It is further stated in the counter :\n<\/p>\n
     “In  respect of general category staff, it has been decided  that the  general category staff of SHOD will be placed at the  bottom of  each  grade in the respective Departments as on  10th  March,  1998.  Future promotion of such employees will be as  per  Indian Airlines  Rules\/Regulations. A notification has also been  issued to  this effect vide reference No. HPD01\/SHOD dated 21.4.1998,  a copy  of  which is annexed hereto as Annexure-H.  In  respect  of  Aircraft Technicians and general category officers, solution  has  not  yet been arrived at. It is, therefore, clear that action  is  already  in  hand  by the Ministry of Civil  Aviation  to  absorb  various categories of SHOD employees in the mainstream of  Indian
\n     Airlines. Since more than 95% of the employees of Indian Airlines  are  represented by various recognised  Unions\/Associations,  and majority  of them are of `workmen’ category as defined under  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act, it is imperative that  the  absorption  process  should involve a process of consensus  building  between SHOD  employees and the recognised Unions\/Associations of  Indian  Airlines.  Indian  Airlines Officers’ Association  which  is  the representative  body of the general category officers  in  Indian   Airlines  has expressed its view that SHOD Officers  should  meet    the eligibility criteria for appointment in Indian Airlines.  The  Indian Airlines Officer’s Association has also demanded that HOD  Officers  should  be inducted only at the entry  level,  and  not  through  lateral  entry at each grade. However, no  decision  has   been arrived at till date by the Ministry.”\n<\/p>\n
26.  About the Criteria for recruitment, it is stated:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is submitted that Indian Airlines has a well defined recruitment policy with eligibility criteria for different direct  entry  levels  and also for promotions to various levels. In respect  of  Vayudoot Limited, to the best of our knowledge, no such  detailed  rules  and  regulations were in vogue. Many of  the  Officers  of  Vayudoot  Limited who were absorbed in the Short Haul  Operations Department  of  Indian Airlines do not possess the  minimum  laid  down  criteria as per applicable for appointment in  Indian  Airlines.”\n<\/p>\n
27.  The Indian Airlines made its position clear by stating:\n<\/p>\n
     “The  petitioners,  who are employees of  Vayudoot  cannot  claim  equality  with  employees of Indian Airlines. It is to  be  noted  that in respect of employees of Vayudoot who have been  appointed  in Air India have been appointed only at direct entry levels  and have  taken  the seniority at the bottom of the cadres  to  which  they have been appointed. In respect of Line Pilots and  Aircraft Engineers,  as already stated at para 7, they would be placed  at  the bottom of the seniority of their cadres. In respect of general category of employees, they are to be placed at the bottom  of
\n     each  grade in the respective Department as on 10th March,  1998. It  can, therefore, be seen that in a number of categories,  they have  already  accepted seniority at the bottom of the  cadre  in Indian  Airlines.  The employees of Vayudoot are  not  comparable with  the employees of Indian Airlines and their  absorption  has  been  in a distinct, separate Department and thus  cannot  allege  any  discrimination. The petitioners who were employees of  Vayudoot have been absorbed in Short Haul Operations Department which  is  a  separate entity and therefore, cannot compare  their  case
\n     with  employees  of  Indian Airlines. It is  submitted  that  the petition  is, therefore, being rendered infructuous  as  unequals  cannot be compared, muchless, as a matter of right.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
28.  In  the counter, reference is also made to the representation made  by the  Indian Airlines Officers Association. A point is also taken  that  the Indian  Airlines  Officers  Association is a necessary party  to  the  writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
29.  From  the counter, the stand of the respondents 2 to 5 is  clear  that while  making  merger  the respondents 2 to 5 had taken  into  account  all aspects of the matter and considered all relevant aspects and the  decision had  been  taken and the same is in accordance with settled  principles  of natural justice. According to the respondents 2 to 5, the petitioners  have not made out any case for interference.\n<\/p>\n
30.  The  Indian Airlines Officers Association has filed a CM.  7849\/98  to implead itself as a party. In paragraph 5 of the CM it is stated:\n<\/p>\n
     “It  may be appropriate to point out that the staff of the  Vayudoot  taken for absorption in Air India has been put at the  tail end of the cadre to which the particular staff belonged. This  is in  accordance  with the well established principles  of  Service Jurisprudence  which  lay  down that any person who  comes  as  a  result of take-over of some sick industry or department is to  be  treated  as  fresh  entrant placing him at the tail  end  of  the persons  borne  on the strength of the cadre. The  principle  has  been  so  affirmed in various decisions by  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  and various High Courts including in the case  of  Gurmail  Singh  &  Others  Vs.  State  of  Punjab  &  Others  decided   on    25.10.1990.\n<\/p>\n
     The applicant-association thus seeks to implead itself as a party  respondent  to  safeguard  the interests of its  members  in  the  aforesaid proceedings. The application deserves to be allowed  in the interest of justice and for the reasons stated hereinabove.”\n<\/p>\n
31.  The  applicant\/Association  filed  the  communication  dated  25.5.93, nistry  of  Civil Aviation, Government of India, as Annexure-A\/1  to  the pplicatioin, which is already extracted. The circular issued by the  Vayudoot Limited dated 24.5.1994 is filed by the applicant as Annexure-A\/2. The communication from the Managing Director, Indian Airlines dated  17.12.1984 is filed by the applicant as Annexure-P\/3. The communication dated 4.1.1995 from  the General Manager, Indian Airlines to the General Secretary of  the Indian Airlines Officers Association is filed as Annexure-A\/4. The communi-cation  dated  29.11.94, which relates to appointment\/absorption  in  Short Haul  Operations Department is filed as Annexure-P\/5. The  Indian  Airlines Officers Association has placed on record the details of 18 officers. Their qualifications and their present position are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 Sl.  Name       Date of     Designation     Promotions                    Vayudoot      Qualifi- \nNo.             Joining     held at the     in design-                    Present       cations\n                in          time of         ation in \n                Vayudoot    joining         Airlines\n                            Indian     \n                            Airlines\n1. Mr.Charu     14.11.86    Steno           1. 1.05.88 - Secretary        Dy.Mana-      Higher \n   C.Joshi                                  2. 1.10.89 - Private          ger(OA)       Secondary\n                                                         Secretary\n2. Ms.S.        02.03.83    Assistant       1.1.10.84-Secretary           Dy.Mana-      B.A.\n   Shanti                   Steno           2. 1.01.87 - Sr.              ger(OA)\n                                                         Secretary  \n                                            3. 18.9.87 - Private \n                                                         Secretary\n                                            4. 1.10.89 - Ex.Secretary\n3. Mr.Kalyan     9.8.83     Driver          1.1.4.85-Sr.Driver            Dy.Mana-      Matric\n   Singh                                    2. 1.08.86 - Supdt.           ger(Trpt.)\n                                                         (Trpt.) \n                                            3. 1.04.90 - Transport \n                                                         Officer\n4. Mr.G.S.      25.7.83     Sr.Office       1.1.10.84-Supdt.              Dy.Manager    B.Sc., \n   Johar                    Asstt.          2. 1.06.85 - Admn.                          LLB\n                                                         Officer(P)       \n                                            3. 1.09.86 - Admn.Officer\n                                                         Sr.Grade\n                                            4. 1.12.88 - Asstt.Manager \n5.Ms.Susan       1.6.87     Steno           1.1.5.88-Secretary            Dy.Mana-      B.Com, \n  Johan                                     2. 1.10.89-Private            ger(OA)       Diploma \n                                                       Secretary                        Secretarial\n                                                                                        Practice\n6. Ms.Maria      29.12.86   Secretary       1. 1.5.90-Private             Dy.Mana-      S.Sc.\n   Dias                                               Secretary           ger (OA)      (Tele\/\n                                                                                        Tourism\/\n                                                                                        Steno Courses)\n7. Mr.S.          1.8.84    Daftry          1.1.8.84-Office Asstt.        Dy.Mana-      B.Com\n   Chander                                           (Promoted            ger(Admn)\n   Das                                                same day)\n                                            2. 1.10.84 - Sr.Office Asstt.\n                                            3. 1.01.87 - Supdt.\n                                            4. 1.10.89 - Corporate \n            Officer\n8. Mr.Cicil       1.9.85    Airport         1. 1.3.86 -                    Dy.Manager   Camb-\n   Jackson                  Manager                                        Sr. Manager  ridge\n9. Mr.Kamal       1.10.84   Sr.Traffic      1.1.6.86-Supdt.                Dy.Manager   B.Com.\n jeet Singh                 Asstt.          2.1.5.88-Traffic Officer\n10.Ms.Renu        1.10.85   Traffic         1. 1.6.86 - Supdt.             Dy.Manager   B.A.\n   Golan                    Asstt.          2. 1.05.88 - Comml.Officer\n11. Mr.R.K.       1.3.83    Sr.Office       1. 1.8.83-Flight               Dy.          B.Com.\n    Agarwal                 Asstt.                    Steward              Manager  \n                                            2. 1.6.86-Operation \n                                                      Officer\n                                            3. 1.12.88 - Asstt.\n                                                         Manager\n12. Mr.A.P.      15.11.84   Stores          1.1.5.88-Office Supdt.         Dy.Manager   S.S.L.C.\n    B.Nair                  & Purchase               Assistant\n13. Mr.A.K.      20.07.83   Sr.Traffic      1.1.10.84-Supdt.               Dy.Manager   B.Com.\n    Gupta                   Asstt.          2.1.5.88-Officer               (Finance)\n14. Mr.K.P.       1.8.84    Sr.Accts.       1.1.9.86-Supdt                 Dy.Manager   B.Com.\n    Agarwal                 Asstt.          2.1.5.88-Officer               (Finance)\n15. Mr.P.H.      02.05.85   Sr.Accts.       1. 11.5.86-Supdt.              Dy.Manager   M.Com.\n    Lele                    Asstt.          2. 1.03.88-Sr.Supdt.           (Finance)\n                                            3. 1.03.89 - Accts.\n                                                         Officer\n16. Mr.R.K.       1.11.84   Sr.Accts.       1. 1.1.87-Supdt.               Dy.Manager   B.Com.\n     Sikka                  Asstt.          2. 1.07.89 - Accts.            (Finance)\n                                                         Officer     \n17. Mr.R.D.       2.3.83    Office          1. 1.4.84-Sr.Accts.            Dy.Manager   High\n     Singh                  Asstt.                    Asstt.               (Finance)    School\n                                            2. 1.03.87 - Supdt.            \n                                            3. 1.07.89 - Accts.\n                                                         Officer\n18. Mr.Dig-       1.8.84    Sr.Accts.       1. 1.01.87-Supdt               Asstt.       B.Com.\n   vijay                                    2. 1.07.89 - Accts.            Manager\n   Rana                                                  Officer\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
32.  In  the light of the factual position, the learned senior counsel  for the petitioners, Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, submitted that:\n<\/p>\n
     1.  In all merger cases and in all cases where the services  were   absorbed, the length of service of employees of both the services  have  to be taken into account to frame a common  seniority,  and ccording  to the learned senior counsel, Mr.  M.N.  Krishnamani, this proposition is well settled;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.  even in transfer cases and  deputation-cum-absorption  cases, he  service rendered in parent department or lending  department is not excluded for reckoning a seniority;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.  Only in cases where transfer of an employee is stayed on  his request, he will lose his past service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
33.  The Supreme Court had laid down that if pay protection is given,  that ould  give a clear indication that there has been a complete  amalgamation and  the  employees taken into the service would have the  benefit  of  the service  rendered  in the erstwhile organisation which is merged  with  the main organisation. The petitioners consequent on the merger, are working as regular  officers  in the Indian Airlines and to deny them the  benefit  of such  regular service would come within the mischief of Articles 14 and  16
\nof  the  Constitution of India. Meeting the submission of counsel  for  the Indian Airlines Officers Association that one person who joined as  driver, became  Deputy  Manager (Commercial), it was submitted that in  the  Indian
\nAirlines illiterates had become Deputy Chief Engineers and General Mangers, e.g., one Mr. N.K. Sharma, illiterate became Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer and  one Mr. Dayal became Chief Manager (Engg). It was also submitted  that creation of Short Haul Operations Department was for the purpose of keeping the  petitioners and other similarly situated persons distinct and to  deny them equal opportunities in Indian Airlines.\n<\/p>\n
33.  Mr.  Mukul  Rohtagi, the learned senior counsel for  Indian  Airlines, submitted  that the Pilots absorbed by Air India from Vayudoot were  placed at  bottom  of the grade on voluntary transfer principle. Similar  was  the case with the staff absorbed by Air India. Thus, Managers in Vayudoot  were taken as Assistant Managers. He further submitted that the year 1996,  just to give a moral boost to the employees who have come from Vayudoot  without following  any norms, the Assistant Managers were promoted as  Deputy  Mangers.  There are no recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Manager  in Vayudoot and everything was done on ad hoc basis. The order of  appointment was  accepted by each of the employees in the form of an affidavit and  the petitioners cannot now resile and seek relief on some principles which  are not applicable. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the senior counsel for Indian  Airlines, relied upon the following judgments:-\n<\/p>\n
     1.   “Chairman, Canara Bank, Bangalore Vs. M.S. Jasra &  Others”,
\n     1992 1 LLJ 777.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.   “Gurmail Singh & Others etc. Vs. State of Punjab &  Others”,
\n     1991 2 LLJ 76 (SC).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
34.  Mr. Ashok Bhasin, the learned counsel for the Union of India,  submitted that negotiations were held for the purpose of sorting out the  differences.  A  meeting was held on the 10th of March, 1998  pertaining  to  the demands  of  the employees of the Short Haul Operations Department  of  the Indian Airlines. The minutes of the meeting is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “A meeting was convened on 10.3.1998 at 2.30 PM by the  Secretary      (Civil Aviation) to discuss the issues related to the demands  of the  employees  of the Short Haul Operations  Department  of  the Indian  Airlines.  A  list of the participants is  given  at  the  Annexure.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In  a  nutshell, the background of the merger  of  Vayudoot  with Indian Airlines, the absorption of Vayudoot employees into IA and AI  and  the creation of Short Haul Operations Department  is  as  follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1. The Ministry of Civil Aviation issued necessary directions  on  25.5.1993 that Vayudoot be merged with Indian Airlines instead of  retaining  the joint ownership by Indian Airlines and Air  India.  It was also directed subsequently that the employees of  Vayudoot  be absorbed by the organisations under the administrative control of MCA on overriding priority. According, Vayudoot employees were  absorbed in IA and AI as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Indian Airlines     :    1023 employees\nAir India           :    311 employees\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
     2.  In  order  to absorb such a large number  of  employees,  the  Indian Airlines created a Short Haul Operations Department  which consisted  of  Vayudoot employees in their  re-grouped  order  of seniority  as  per their length of service with  designations  as  were applicable in Indian Airlines. This took care of the opposition from the IA’s unions to the absorption of Vayudoot employees on  the one hand and also met with the directions of the  Government  on  the other. However, slowly over a period of  time,  the SHOD employees started representing on various counts such as the  lack  of  gainful utilisation of their services,  maintenance  of  separate seniority list of the employee of SHOD from that of  the
\n     IA’s  employees, no avenues of career progression, etc. The  various  cadres such as the pilots, the engineers, the  technicians, the  general category staff and officers  repeatedly  represented nd held discussions with the management of the Indian  Airlines.  In order to discuss the issues one by one and to settle the same,  the  Secretary (CA) convened this meeting wherein  their  demands were  taken up in the presence of the CMD, Indian Airlines.  Discussions were held at great length and the views of the employees  as  well  as of the IA’s representatives  were  presented.  After prolonged  discussions,  the following decisions  were  taken  in  respect of each category:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     PILOT<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     1.  SHOD Pilots will undergo training on IA aircraft and on  getting type endorsement will be placed at the bottom of the senior-ity  of First Officers (Co-Pilots). However, their past  services will  be  counted  for the purpose of pay  protection  and  other  financial  benefits. Their future growth will be on the basis  of the line seniority. The IA will take necessary action to initiate  their training within a period of one month.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. Pilots who fail to obtain licence endorsement as per IA  rules  will be retained in SHOD. Such Pilots may be provided appropriate  ground job. Their basic pay and allowances in such cases will  be  protected.  The  proposal is based on the basis of the policy adopted  by the Company while phasing out turboprop  aircraft  in  1982.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. Four executive Pilots will remain in SHOD and will be sent  on  deputation to Alliance Air. After acquiring training and  getting  Boeing endorsement they will be appointed as Co-Pilots. Their pay   and allowances and status will be protected.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     1. The Aircraft Engineers will undergo training on any of the  IA  jet fleet as per requirement and after acquiring licence endorse- ment  will be placed at the bottom of the seniority  of  Aircraft Engineers in the respective grade.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. The Aircraft Engineers who fail to obtain licence  endorsement  in  three DGCA attempts will be reverted back to SHOD. Such  Air- craft Engineers may be provided alternate job. Their basic pay in  such cases will be protected.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     TECHNICIANS<\/p>\n
     SHOD  Aircraft Technicians were of the view that they should  get seniority in the respective grades. It was explained that  Indian  Aircraft Technicians’ Association was not agreeable to the later- al  transfer of technicians in the respective grades. The  IATA’s contention was that when IA technicians were transferred from one  region to the other, they were losing their seniority. Therefore,  SHOD  technicians  should  also be placed at the  bottom  of  the  seniority  of  Aircraft Technicians. This was not  acceptable  to    SHOD  technicians. They stated that they will discuss this  issue
\n     with their colleagues and report to the Ministry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     GENERAL CATEGORY STAFF<\/p>\n
     It  was decided that the general category staff of the SHOD  will  be  placed at the bottom of each grade in respective  Departments   as on 10th March, 1998.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     GENERAL CATEGORY OFFICERS<\/p>\n
     It  was  decided  to discuss the issue of  the  general  category  officers again since some reservations were expressed during  the   meeting  with regard to induction of the SHOD officers  into  the respective grades.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     SENIORITY<\/p>\n
     It was decided that SHOD employees should be reckoned in  respective  seniorities  for the general category staff  in  respective  grades  of each department from 10th March, 1998.  Future  promotions should consider such employees as per the revised seniority of the IA.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Inter-se  seniority  of SHOD employees will be  maintained  while placing them in different cadres\/grades.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
35.  On the 2nd of April, 1998, the Government of India issued a  modification to the note dated 23.3.1998 which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Sub:  Minutes  of the meeting convened by the  Secretary  (Civil Aviation)  on 10.3.1998 at 2.30 p.m. on the issue  pertaining  to  the demands of the SHOD employees of the Indian Airlines.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In  partial modification of this Ministry’s note of  even  number  dated  23rd  March, 1998 on the subject noted above,  the  under signed  is  directed  to say that Para ‘1’ and  ‘2’  relating  to  Aircraft Engineers may be substituted as under :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1.   “The  Aircraft Engineer will undergo training on any of  the  IA fleet as per requirement and after acquiring licence  endorsement  will be placed at the bottom of the seniority  of  Aircraft  Engineers  in the respective grade. However, their  past  service will  be  counted  for the purpose of pay  protection  and  other financial  benefits. Their future growth will be on the basis  of the  line  seniority.  The Indian Airlines  will  take  necessary  action to initiate their training within a period of one month.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.   The  Aircraft Engineers who fail to obtain licence  endorse ment  in three DGCA attempts will be reverted back to SHOD.  Such  Aircraft  Engineers may be provided alternate job. Their  status,  pay and allowances in such cases will be protected.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
36.  On  the 23rd of April, 1998 a meeting was held relating to issues  and emand  of  the employees of the Short Haul Operations  Department,  Indian Airlines. The minutes of the meeting is as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     A meeting was convened on 23rd April, 1998 at 3.00 p.m. to discuss the issues  relating  to the demands of the employees of Short  Haul  Operation Department  (SHOD)  of  the Indian Airlines. The list  of  participants  is
\nannexed.\n<\/p>\n
     After careful consideration and detailed discussions with the  management of the I.A. and the representatives of various categories of employees of  Short Haul Operations Department of the Indian Airlines, the  following Decisions were taken pertaining to each category:-\n<\/p>\n
     TRAINING PILOTS<\/p>\n
     1.   There  were  four trainee pilots at the time  of  merger  of      Vayudoot  with  Indian Airlines but their training could  not  be completed  due to the merger. It was pointed out in  the  meeting that  these  pilots have neither been used for any work  nor  was their training completed or any compensation given to them. M.D.,  Alliance Air made an offer to consider these pilots for the  post  of  Flight  Operations  Assistants. The  representatives  of  the    trainee\/pilots could not give a decisive reply in the meeting. As  such, no final decision could be taken.\n<\/p>\n
     GENERAL CATEGORY OFFICERS:\n<\/p>\n
     2.   The  representatives of the general category  officers  have demanded  the  issuing of Proforma Promotions for  SHOD  Officers after  their  lateral absorption in other Departments  of  Indian  Airlines  with effect from 1st December, 1994.  However,  keeping  with  the general principle being followed in the other cases  of aircraft  engineers and general category staff, it was  suggested  that the general category officers should be placed at the bottom of  each  grade and in their respective departments  as  on  10th  March,  1998. However, their designation, status, pay and  allowances  would be protected by Indian Airlines in their  respective  departments.  The representatives of the SHOD Officers could  not
\n     reach a conclusive decision on this offer in the meeting.\n<\/p>\n
     TECHNICIANS <\/p>\n
     3.   The Technicians have demanded that their seniority be counted from the date of joining in the erstwhile Vayudoot with proper career  progression. It was also pointed out by them that  Indian Airlines  Management  gave  them an undertaking at  the  time  of   merger  that the Aircraft Technicians will not be placed  at  the  induction  level.  In case, their demand was not  accepted,  they  preferred  to remain in SHOD, CMD, I.A. desired to take a  week’s  time  to discuss their issue with IAIA so that  some  perceptible solution could be found in their case as well.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   It  was, however, decided that their position could be  disussed  again after the receipt of Indian Airlines report in  the  matter  on  whether they could be inducted  in  their  respective  grade  and rank as on 10th March, 1998 with protection  of  their  status,  designation and pay and other allowances or  allowed  to   continue in SHOD with career progression.\n<\/p>\n
     GENERAL CATEGORY STAFF<\/p>\n
     5.   In the last meeting held on 10th Mach, 1998, it was  decided  that the general category staff of the SHOD will be placed at the bottom  of each grade in their respective Departments as on  10th Mach, 1998. No representative of this category was present in the last  meeting,  they have now stated that the cut-off  date  i.e.  10th  March, 1998 is not suitable to them as it will result in  a long  delay  in  their promotions. They,  therefore,  desired  to continue in SHOD with proper career progression.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   In view of the above, it was decided that the General  category  of  staff may be offered on voluntary basis to  merge  with Indian Airlines as on 10th March, 1998 at the existing grade with  protection of their pay and past service and other benefits  etc.  as per I.A. rules.\n<\/p>\n
     The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.\n<\/p>\n
37.  The  attendance sheet shows the persons who attended the meeting.  The
\nsame is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                              ATTENDANCE SHEET
\n     MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1.         Sh. M.K. Kaw Secretary (CA)
\n                In the Chair\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.         Sh. A.P. Singh, Joint Secretary\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.         Smt. Vandita Sharma, Dy. Secretary\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.         Sh. R.S. Meena, Under Secretary\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.         Smt. Rajni Taneja, Section Officer
\n     INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. MANAGEMENT\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.         Sh. P.C. Sen, Chairman &
\n                Managing Director\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.         Cap. J.R.D. Rao,
\n                Deputy Managing Director\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     8.         Sh. S.D. Arora, Dy. Managing Director\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9.         Sh. Gurdip Singh, Director (Pers.)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10.        Sh. V. Kashyap, Ex. Director (SHOD)
\n     TECHNICIANS\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11.        Sh. S.K. Singh, M\/Technician\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12.        Sh. Amit J. Sharma, M\/Technician
\n     GENERAL CATEGORY OFFICERS\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     13.        Sh. Abhay Pathak, Manager (Comm)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.        Sh. Ashok K. Parmar Manager (Comm)
\n     GENERAL CATEGORY STAFF\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     15.        Sh.Adesh Chaturvedi
\n                (Indian Airlines Employees Cong.)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     16.        Sh. S.P. Shokia,
\n                Vayudoot Karmchari Sangh
\n     TRAINEE PILOTS\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     17.        Sh. Manoj Kumar Dutta\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     18.         Sh. Manoj Kumar
\n     AIR HOSTESSES\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     19.        Ms. Denna Barua\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     20.        Ms. Divya Vardhan\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     21.        Ms. Aradhana Jain
\n     OTHERS\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     22.        Ms. Sameena Ahmed,
\n                Vayudoot Karmchari Sangh\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     23.        Dr. S.S. Imam, M. Technician\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     24.        Sh. K.S. Mishra, Sr. Technician\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     25.        Sh. S.S. Chandel, Supdt.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     26.        Sh. S.R. Zaidi, Sr. Store Techn.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     27.        Sh. Jagjit Singh,
\n                Sr. A\/c Technician\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     28.        Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sr. OA\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     29.        Sh. Sanjai Misri, Dy. Manager(C)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     30.        Sh. Anand Pandey, Dy. Manager(C)
\n     No final decision could be reached.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
38.  The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M.N.  Krishnamani, relying  upon the following judgments, submitted that in all  merger  cases the  past services of the persons who came into the main organisation  have
\nto be reckoned for interse seniority:\n<\/p>\n
     1.   “Joginder  Nath & Others Vs. Union of India & Others”,  1975 (1) SLR 33.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.   “K. Madhavan & Another Vs. Union of India & Others, .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.   “Kewal  Krishan Bagga Vs. The Chairman Railway Board &  Oth-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ers”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
39.  In “Joginder Nath & Others Vs. Union of India & Others”, 1975 (1)  SLR 33, the Supreme Court dealt with the claim of interse seniority of officers who had come to service under the Delhi Administration. I have gone through
\nthe  judgment and the ratio laid down therein would not apply to the  facts
\nof the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
40.  In  “K. Madhavan & Another Vs. Union of India & Others,   the facts are entirely different and it is not necessary to deal  with
\nthe same. Judgment in “Kewal Krishan Bagga Vs. The Chairman Railway Board &
\nOthers”,  also would deal with a different situation.\n<\/p>\n
41.  The  next proposition put forth by the learned senior counsel for  the petitioners,  Mr.  M.N. Krishnamani, was that even in  transfer  cases  and deputation-cum-abrosption cases, the service rendered in parent  department or  lending  department is not excluded. In support of  this,  the  learned senior  counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, referred to  the following judgments:\n<\/p>\n
     1.   \"Dr.  S.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India & Others\", 1995  (5)      SLR 523\n \n\n     2.   \"Ms.  Mohini  Rautels Vs. Municipal Corporation  of  Delhi\", \n     . \n\n \n\n42.  In \"Dr. S.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India & Others\", 1995 (5) SLR  523 \n(Delhi  High Court), the claim of the petitioner before this is  considered \nby this Court in the following terms: \n \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
     “Mr.  Bhat  has argued that the petitioner was  selected  through Public Service Commission by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. On .1967  the petitioner joined the said post of  Assistant  Surgeon.  The  petitioner was transferred to ITBP on  deputation  in  public interest and thereafter as mentioned above he was absorbed in  the ITBP. Mr. Bhat has contended that in such an  eventuality it  was  incumbent that the respondent ought to have  taken  into
\n     consideration  the  length of service of the petitioner  for  the      purpose of promotion and fixation of seniority.  second  argument  advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is  that  in any event of the matter, the revised grade of Rs.700-1300,  which  was granted to the other doctors from 1.1.1973 was to be given to the petitioner from the date as the petitioner had already joined  the  ITBP  and the absorption of the petitioner  subsequently  on 28.6.1973  was an acknowledgement of the fact, which was  already  in  existence. In support of his contention, Mr.Bhat  has  relied
\n     upon Joginder Nath and Others Vs. Union of India,  and K. Madhvan and Another  Vs.  Union  of
\n     Indian and others, .”\n<\/p>\n
     Dealing with the scheme, this Court held:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Coming to the second submissions made by the learned counsel for the  petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to  maintain  his seniority  on  the basis of the length of service, which  we  had done in the Health Department of State of Madhya Pradesh. The law  is well-settled by the Supreme Court on this point in the case of Joginder  Nath and others Vs. Union of India and others  (supra),  in which the Supreme Court held:-\n<\/p>\n
     “…..The  assignment  of duties was to follow on  the  basis  of niority list. Arranging the seniority of the candidates  recommended  by the Selection Committee in accordance with the  length of  service rendered by them in the judicial cadre to which  they  belonged at the time of their initial recruitment to the  service was  perfectly good……. The questions posed are suggestive  of  the answers. Taking the length of service rendered by the  candi-\n<\/p>\n
     dates  in their respective cadres for the purpose of fixation  of seniority  under Rule 11 of the Delhi Judicial Rules  was  justified,  legal and valid. Had it been otherwise it would have  been discriminatory. It was not equating unequals with equals. It  was merely  placing two classes at par for the purpose  of  seniority  when it became a single class in the integrated judicial  service  of Delhi. For the purpose of fixation of seniority it would  have been  highly  unjust and unreasonable to take the date  of  their nitial  recruitment to the service as their  first  appointment.    Nor was it possible to take any other date in between the  period  of their service in their parent cadre. It would have been wholly
\n     arbitrary.  In our judgment, therefore, there was no escape  from  the position that the entire length of service of the two classes of  officers had got to be counted for the purpose of  determination of their seniority on their initial recruitment to the Delhi  Judicial Service.\n<\/p>\n
     Following  the  above principles and the dicta laid down  by  the Supreme  Court  in K.Madhvan and another Vs. Union of  India  and  others (supra), it would be doing injustice to the petitioner  if  his continuous length of service, which he has done in the  State  of Madhya Pradesh, is not counted for the purpose of granting him  seniority in the ITBP.”\n<\/p>\n
     I fail to see how this would be of any assistance to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
43.  In “Ms. Mohini Rautels Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi”, , this Court dealt with the claim of Assistant Teachers  who ere working in Nehru Adarsh Primary School, who were declared surplus  and stood transferred to MCD Primary School. The case of the petitioner in that case  was  that MCD was paying only 95% of the salary. In Rule  47  of  the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 the guidelines have been given as to how the  employees  who  are declared surplus and absorbed  by  the  Government should be treated. This Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Rule  47(2)(a) clearly mention that the salary and other  allowances  last drawn by him at the school from which he  has  become urplus  shall  be protected. In this view of the  matter,  there seems  to  be  no justification for not paying  full  salary  and allowances to the petitioners and other similarly placed  employees who have not approached this court.”\n<\/p>\n
     This is also not helpful for the present purpose.\n<\/p>\n
44.  The  learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.N.  Krishnamani, referred  to  another proposition that only in cases where transfer  of  an employee is stayed on his request, he will lose his past service, yet he is treated  as  next to the last person who was recruited or promoted  to  the same  post  before his joining for the purpose of  seniority.  The  learned senior  counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, referred to  the judgment  in  “Arun Kumar Chatterjee Vs. South Eastern Railway  &  Others”, . The situation in that case is different and  the  above proposition with reference to transfer on voluntary basis cannot be disputed.\n<\/p>\n
45.  The next proposition put forth in support of the case of the petitioner  by the learned senior counsel, Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, was that  the  Supreme  Court  had  held that if pay protection is given by  the  device  of amalgamation  and  compulsory transfer, the employee  concerned  should  be given full benefit of the past service. The learned senior counsel referred to  the judgment in “Tej Narain Tiwary Vs. State of Bihar &  Others”,  1993 Supp  (2)  SCC 623. I do not find any proposition that is relevant  to  the instant case laid down by the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
46.  The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M.N.  Krishnamani, further  submitted that the Supreme Court had held that the ad hoc  service has  to be counted if it is continuous and if such appointment is not  contrary to the rules. The learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, referred to the following judgments:-\n<\/p>\n
     1.   \"Direct  Recruit Class II Engineering Officers'  Association      Vs. State of Maharashtra\", . \n \n\n     2.   \"I.K. Sukhija & Others Vs. Union of India & Others\",  . \n \n\n     3.   \"Shri  Bishamber Nath Vs. Union of India & Others, 1995  III \n     AD (Delhi) 905. \n\n \n\n     I do not find any thing useful in those cases for the present  discussion. \n \n\n47.  The  learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M.N.  Krishnamani \n<\/pre>\n
referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Reserve Bank of India Vs. N.C. Paliwal & Others”, . This is also easily distinguishable and does not apply, in my view, to the facts and circumstances of  this case.\n<\/p>\n
48.  In  my view, the respondents had acted in accordance with law and  the petitioners have not made out any case for interference. Accordingly,  both the writ petitions are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
49.  There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines … vs Government Of India on 12 July, 1999 Author: K Ramamoorthy Bench: K Ramamoorthy ORDER K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. In CAP. 931\/98, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “In the circumstances mentioned above, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court […]<\/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-63860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRoopam Sharma And Indian Airlines ... vs Government Of India on 12 July, 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\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines ... vs Government Of India on 12 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-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=\"1999-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-29T21:36:51+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=\"47 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines … vs Government Of India on 12 July, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-29T21:36:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999\"},\"wordCount\":8914,\"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\\\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999\",\"name\":\"Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines ... vs Government Of India on 12 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-29T21:36:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines … vs Government Of India on 12 July, 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":"Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines ... vs Government Of India on 12 July, 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\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines ... vs Government Of India on 12 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-29T21:36:51+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":"47 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines … vs Government Of India on 12 July, 1999","datePublished":"1999-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-29T21:36:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999"},"wordCount":8914,"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\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999","name":"Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines ... vs Government Of India on 12 July, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-29T21:36:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roopam-sharma-and-indian-airlines-vs-government-of-india-on-12-july-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Roopam Sharma And Indian Airlines … vs Government Of India on 12 July, 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\/63860","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=63860"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63860\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}