sr.11-wp-2408-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2408 OF 2021 Lt. Colonel Rajendra J (retired) .. Petitioner Versus Union of India (thr. Secretary), Ministry of Civil Aviation & Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Angsuman Nibas Chandra Ojha for the Petitioner. Adv. Anusha Pravin Amin for Respondents. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: APRIL 23, 2026 P. C. 1. The above Writ Petition raises basically two issues. The first issue is the non-renewal of the Petitioner’s Commercial Helicopter Pilot License (CHPL). The second issue is the alleged wrongful termination from his employment with the DGCA as the Flight Operations Inspector (Helicopter). A claim for damages is also made in the above Writ Petition. 2. As far as the non-renewal of the license is concerned, the Petitioner has already availed of the appellate remedy available to him under Rule 3B of the Aircraft Rules 1937. That Appeal is pending. Hence, we are not APRIL 23, 2026 Mansi shelke TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2026.04.24 15:28:07 +0530 sr.11-wp-2408-2021.doc commenting on the issue of non-renewal of the license of the Petitioner’s CHPL. The only issue that we have to now decide is whether the Petitioner was wrongly terminated by the DGCA as contended by the Petitioner. 3. After going through the papers and proceedings, we are unable to agree with the submissions of the Petitioner that he has been wrongly terminated by the DGCA. From the record, we find that the Petitioner was appointed as a Flight Operations Inspector (“FOI”) pursuant to a contract which the Petitioner himself has brought on record at Exhibit AR-9 (page 324 of the paper book). This contract itself states that the tenure of the contract will be for a period upto 30th June, 2020, or till the incumbent attains the age of 70 years, or till the post is filled up on the regular basis or until further orders, whichever is earlier. It is an admitted fact that the DGCA, by its letter dated 30th June, 2020, relieved the Petitioner (and others) of his duties, with effect from 30th June, 2020 as the contract period was completed. It is the Petitioner’s contention that this contract stood automatically extended by virtue of a document styled as “Extension of the contract of existing FOIs in various categories for a period of three months beyond 30th June, 2020.” This document can be found at page 333 of the paper book. On going through the aforesaid so called extension, we do not find that this document in any way extends the contract of the Petitioner beyond 30th June, 2020. When one APRIL 23, 2026 Mansi shelke sr.11-wp-2408-2021.doc reads this document, what becomes clear is that the DGCA, to continually fill up the posts on contract basis from 1st July, 2020, requested the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to convey their in principle approval to the said proposal. While the Cabinet approval was awaited, in view of the functional requirements of the DGCA to engage FOIs, a proposal was submitted to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) for obtaining approval of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Department of Expenditure (DoE) for extension of the contract period of the existing FOIs in various categories on the existing emoluments and terms and conditions for a period of three months from 1st July, 2020 to 30th September, 2020. This proposal was accorded approval by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Department of Expenditure (DoE), and which was conveyed to the DGCA by the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA). This does not, in our humble opinion, extend the contract of the Petitioner as sought to be contended before us. There is no extension letter produced before us by the Petitioner informing him that his tenure has been extended pursuant to the approval granted to the DGCA by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Department of Expenditure (DoE). When one reads this document, it is clear that there are certain conditions that are to be fulfilled before the tenure of the FOIs is extended. Page 3 of 5 APRIL 23, 2026 Mansi shelke sr.11-wp-2408-2021.doc 4. In fact, paragraph 12 of this document, categorically records that it is proposed to consider extension of the tenure of 34 existing FOIs on the existing emoluments being drawn by them and existing terms and conditions, and the requirement of medical fitness as required for them in the respective posts for a period of three months with effect from 1st July, 2020 to 30th September, 2020 or until further orders, whichever is earlier. This also fortifies our view that the document relied upon by the Petitioner, to contend that the contract of the Petitioner is duly extended, holds no merit. In these circumstances, this document can never be termed as an automatic extension, especially considering it is not addressed to any FOIs. 5. Considering these facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the Petitioner cannot contend that his contract was extended. Once this is our finding, there is no question of awarding any damages as sought for in prayer clause (f) of the Petition. There is also no question therefore of granting any relief of status quo on the Petitioner’s present job application in response to the Respondent’s Recruitment Circular dated 29th May, 2021. 6. In view of the above discussion, we pass the following order : a) As far as the issue regarding the renewal of the Petitioner’s Commercial Helicopter Pilot’s License is concerned, we have not opined APRIL 23, 2026 Mansi shelke sr.11-wp-2408-2021.doc on the merits of the same since that issue is already pending before the Appellate Authority under Rule 3B of the Aircraft Rules 1937. That Appeal shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. b) Since that Appeal is pending quite for some time, we would request the Appellate Authority to hear the Appeal of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of four months from the date of this Order being communicated to the Appellate Authority. c) As far as the issue regarding the alleged wrongful termination of the Petitioner is concerned, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In the facts of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] APRIL 23, 2026 Mansi shelke