Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay WPA 21778 of 2011 Capt. Monoj Kumar Singh Versus Air India Limited & Ors. With WPA 2604 of 2012 Capt Monoj Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Somnath Dutta, Mr. S. Das For the Respondents : Mr. S. M. Obaidullah, Mr. R. N. Majumder, Mr. Roni Chowdhury Heard & Judgment on : 19th August, 2025. Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J: 1. The petitioner had joined the service of Indian Airlines Limited subsequently re-named as Air India Limited on 19th March, 1989 as a co-pilot and efficiently discharged his functions undertaking flying duties in both domestic as well as International flights from the year 1989 till 14th September, 2011 upon upgradation as a Commander on and from 6th February, 2004. The petitioner 2 subsequently challenged Clause 7.1 of the Memorandum of Settlement which was executed by and between ICPA, of which the petitioner had been a member, and the management of respondent no.1, determining the allowances and other conditions of service of the members of the aforesaid Association on 26th January, 1996. The petitioner contended to have been aggrieved since the authorities in the month of September, 2001 had arbitrarily and unilaterally deducted a sum of Rs.6,22,213/- from his monthly salary. On enquiry, the petitioner learnt from the Officer holding the rank of General Manger of Operations that the sum as aforesaid was paid in excess to him which would be recovered from his monthly salary. As per the agreement dated 26th January, 1996 executed between the ICPA and the Management of the Indian Airlines, the petitioner was entitled to enhanced flying allowance at the rate of Rs.200/- per hour from 1st January, 1999 and the authorities had accordingly sanctioned such enhanced hourly flying allowance rate to him with effect from 1st January, 1999. The petitioner alleged the authorities wrongfully and illegally continued to deduct an amount from his monthly salary for the period of January 1999 to June, 2001 on the alleged ground of excess payment although he was admittedly entitled to receive such enhanced hourly flying allowance per hour from the month of January, 1999 onwards. 3 The petitioner relied on the order No.HOP/06/4403/1318 dated 15.10.2001 issued by the General Manager (Operations) and a copy of the letter dated 16th August, 2002. The petitioner further contended that the authorities exceeded its jurisdiction and without basis whatsoever recovered such huge amount of money from his well deserved toilsome allowances and the recovery was absolutely unjustified, wrongful, illegal and without jurisdiction contrary to the settlements and various orders passed by the authorities. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being 5316(W) 2007, wherein this Hon’ble Court had inter alia directed:- “In view of the said stand taken by the learned counsel for the Indian Airlines Limited to the effect that his client is willing to reconsider the case of the petitioner, I do not think that any effective purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. I am satisfied that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in issuing the impugned memos and accordingly I do not think that these memos can be allowed to remain operative. The impugned memos contain decision of the respondents to recover the amount and none of them leave any scope for the petitioner to represent his case against the recovery. Further since the Indian Airlines Limited themselves have expressed their willingness to reconsider the case of the 4 petitioner, in the light of my observation on the legal strength of the impugned memos, I quash the impugned memos being Annexures “P7”, “P8” and “P9”. However, the Indian Airlines Limited shall be at liberty to initiate proceeding for recovery of this amount only upon giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and in such circumstances the petitioner shall be entitled to dispute the claim of the Indian Airlines Limited, if so advised and upon considering the cases of the respective parties or their representatives, a Senior Officer not below the rank of Deputy Managing Director of the Indian Airlines Limited shall adjudicate the dispute and decide the matter by passing a reasoned order. If the proceeding is initiated the petitioner shall be at liberty, within a period of three weeks time from the date he is informed of initiation of the proceeding to rebut the proposal for recovery of alleged excess payment.” 2. In compliance with the order dated 24.7.2007 WP 5316(W) of 2007, the concerned respondent authorities had recorded the personal hearing of the aggrieved persons including the present petitioner. On discussion and scrutiny of the case, reasoned order was passed which recorded the submissions of the present petitioner too. In the course of recording the reasoned order passed by the respondent authorities in compliance with the 5 direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order passed in WP 5316(W) of 2007, as aforesaid, inter alia, stated as follows:- “According to Operations Department, the fitment was calculated based on the above criteria and the payment is being paid accordingly. However, Capt. M K Singh and Capt. V. P. Seth who fall under the criteria III and IV have not been paid the same due to pending Writ. As such the ICPA and the Management in principle have agreed that such co-pilots are entitled for compensation. Capt M K Singh and Capt V P Seth are also such Co-Pilots who did not obtain PIC within seven years, as such they are also eligible for payment of enhanced flying allowance rate from the date of entry into Captain’s grade. They have obtained Captain’s grade on 30th October, 1997. However, they obtained ALTP in April, 1998 and July, 1998 respectively. As such their flying allowance rate as under: January 1999 to December, 1999 Rs. 1925/- January 2000 to December, 2000 Rs. 2125/- January 2001 Rs.2325/- February, 2001 to December, 2001 Rs.3455/- January, 2002 to December, 2002 Rs. 3755/- January, 2003 to January, 2004 Rs.4055/- 6 3. The SBU MRO (EC) finally observed as follows:- that the petitioner amongst other as per their seniority had been next to be taken up for PIC training but could not be taken for no requirement of Commander by the Management. Thus, he became eligible for the early flying allowance at the enhanced rates from June, 2002. 4. The learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits from the year 1996 contrary to that of 2002. 5. The learned Advocate representing the respondent authorities submitted that the respondents, Air India Limited had lost its identity on being privatized and in view of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents, Air India Limited having lost its legal entity to address the grievance of the petitioner could not take any step towards the redressal and the prayers as claimed in the instant writ petition. 6. The petitioner had filed the instant writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents and each one of them their men, agents, assigns and subordinates to certify and transmit to this Hon’ble Court the records of the case including the order 7 dated 14th /19th October, 2011 passed by the respondent no.3, being annexure ‘P-14’ herein, so that conscionable justice may be administered by quashing the same; (b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and each one of them their men, agents, assigns and subordinates to rescind, recall, revoke and withdraw the order dated 14th /19th October, 2011 passed by the respondent no.3, being annexure ‘P-14’ herein and to act in accordance with law; (c) A writ or order in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to refund to your petitioner a sum of Rs.6,22,213/- along with interest, which had been deducted from your petitioner’s pay; (d) Any other appropriate writ or writs, order or orders and/or direction or directions”. 7. In R.S. Madireddy & Anr. Etc. –Vs.- The Union of India & Ors.1 which was delivered on 24th August, 2022. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court as observed in Paragraph 73 as follows: “It is a fact that this Court could not decide these writ petitions during the long years of its pendency, which is bound to have shattered the hopes and aspirations of retired employees like the petitioners. However, at the same time, such inability to decide 1 WP No. 1770 of 2011 8 these writ petitions prior to privatization of AIL was due to reasons absolutely beyond the control of this Court, as admitted by Mr. Singhvi even. Notwithstanding the same, this Court, through its Chief Justice, regrets its inability to so decide prior to privatization of AIL”. 8. In Mr. Madireddy & Anr. Etc. –Vs.- Union of India & Ors.2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as observed in Paragraph 37 to 46 as follows: “37. The respondent No. 3(AIL), the erstwhile Government run airline having been taken over by the private company Talace India Pvt. Ltd., unquestionably, is not performing any public duty inasmuch as it has taken over the Government company Air India Limited for the purpose of commercial operations, plain and simple, and thus no writ petition is maintainable against respondent No. 3(AIL). The question No. 1 is decided in the above manner. 38. The question of issuing a writ would only arise when the writ petition is being decided. Thus, the issue about exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would arise only on the date when the writ petitions were taken up for consideration and decision. The respondent No. 3(AIL) employer was a government entity on the date of filing of 2 Special Leave Petition (c) 23441-23444 of 2022 9 the writ petitions, which came to be decided after a significant delay by which time, the company had been disinvested and taken over by a private player. Since, respondent no. 3 employer had been disinvested and had assumed the character of a private entity not performing any public function, the High Court could not have exercised the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to issue a writ to such private entity. The Learned Division Bench has taken care to protect the rights of the appellants to seek remedy and thus, it cannot be said that the appellants have been non-suited in the case. It is only that the appellants would have to approach another forum for seeking their remedy. Thus, the question No. 2 is decided against the appellants. 39. By no stretch of imagination, the delay in disposal of the writ petitioners could have been a ground to continue with the maintain the writ petitions because the forum that is the High Court where the writ petitions were instituted could not have issued a writ to the private respondent which had changed hands in the intervening period. Hence, the question No. 3 is also decided against the appellants. 40. Resultantly, the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in denying equitable relief to the appellants herein and relegating them to approach the appropriate forum for ventilating their grievances is the only just and permissible view. 10 41. We may also note that the appellants raised grievances by way of filing the captioned writ petitions between 2011 and 2013 regarding various service-related issues which cropped up between the appellants and the erstwhile employer between 2007 and 2010. Therefore, it is clear that the writ petitions came to be instituted with substantial delay from the time when the cause of action had accrued to the appellants. 42. It may further be noted that the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, only denied equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the appellants but at the same time, rights of the appellants to claim relief in law before the appropriate forum have been protected. 43. We may further observe that in case the appellants choose to approach the appropriate forum for ventilating their grievances as per law in light of the observations made by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall come to the rescue insofar as the issue of limitation is concerned. 44. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in sustaining the preliminary objection qua maintainability of the writ petitions preferred by the appellants and rejecting the same as being not maintainable. 11 45. With the above observation, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 46. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of”. 9. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court which had been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the remedy sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition could not be granted to the petitioner by the respondents, Air India Limited which had lost its identity and credibility upon being privatized. The petitioner can opt for redressal of his grievance through appropriate forum, if so desires. 10. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted that WPA/2604/2012 has become infructuous and has not submitted on the merits of the same. Disciplinary proceeding had already been concluded. Accordingly WPA/2604/2012 has been disposed of without considering the merits of the same. 11. Accordingly, WPA/21778/2011 along with connected applications is disposed of. 12. Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as the concerned tribunal as expeditiously as possible. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) Srimanta, A.R.(Ct.)