Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4420 of 2006). Case: K.A. Ansari and Anr. Vs Indian Airlines Ltd.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4420 of 2006) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Nisha Bagchi and Meenakshi Arora, Advs. And For Respondents: R.S. Suri, Adv. |
| Judges | D.K. Jain and P. Sathasivam, JJ. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Citation | 2008 (15) Scale 620 , (2009) 2 SCC 164 |
| Judgement Date | Friday November 28, 2008 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
D.K. Jain, J.
-
Leave granted.
-
This appeal is directed against two common orders, dated 21st November, 2005, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. Nos. 1135 and 1136 of 2005. By the impugned orders, the High Court has allowed the appeals, preferred by the Indian Airlines Limited, the sole respondent in this appeal, against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in the miscellaneous application filed by the first appellant herein, seeking clarification of the final judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 11th October, 2004. The Division Bench has held that after disposal of the writ petitions, miscellaneous application was not maintainable and, hence order dated 4th March, 2005 on the said application was without jurisdiction.
-
In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to recapitulate the background facts, stated in detail by the learned Single Judge. These are as follows:
The appellants were appointed as Field Officers by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Agricultural Aviation in the years 1978 and 1979. On 24th July, 1987, they were transferred under the administrative control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. M/s Vayudoot Limited (for short `Vayudoot'), a public sector undertaking, was incorporated in the year 1981. In the year 1988, the assets of the Directorate of Agricultural Aviation were transferred to Vayudoot. As a result thereof, the services of the officers of Directorate of Civil Aviation were placed at the disposal of Vayudoot, on deputation. The deputation was on same terms and conditions including pay and allowances as were being received by the appellants under the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
-
On 8th April, 1988, posts of the appellants were re- designated as Operation Officers. Again on 9th May, 1989, the designation of the appellants was changed to Assistant Manager. Appellant No. 1 - K.P.S. Rathore, was selected as a trainee pilot on 1st January, 1989 and was confirmed as such with effect from 1st November, 1990. Appellant No. 2 - K.A. Ansari, was appointed as a junior pilot on 1st July, 1990 and was confirmed as such with effect from 1st October, 1990.
-
It appears that in the year 1993, the Government of India took a policy decision to merge Vayudoot with Indian Airlines. On 24th May, 1994, Ministry of Civil Aviation issued an order conveying the decision of the Government that the process of absorption of the Vayudoot employees shall commence by 31st June, 1994 with certain relaxations/benefits to them on joining the new organisation. The benefits included protection of basic pay drawn by the employees of Vayudoot at the time of their absorption in Indian Airlines.
-
It seems that the employees of Vayudoot, who were absorbed in the Indian Airlines in a separately created `Short Haul Operations Department', referred to as `SHOD' by the learned Single Judge, demanded integration with the existing employees of Indian Airlines. They claimed that they had a right to be promoted to the next corresponding post with the existing employees of Indian Airlines by including the service rendered by them under Vayudoot. As expected, the integration was opposed by the existing employees of the Indian Airlines. Negotiations were held and in the meeting held on 10th March, 1988, one of the decisions' taken was as under:
PILOT
-
SHOD pilots will undergo training in IA aircraft and on getting type endorsement will be...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Writ Petition (C) No. 1639 of 2009. Case: Mukut Kalita Vs State of Assam and Ors.. Guwahati High Court
...the learned Counsel has also pressed into service the decisions of the Apex Court in Ka Ansari and Anr. v. Indian Airlines Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 164 and State of Haryana and Ors. v. M.P. Mohla (2007) 1 SCC 7. Per contra, Mr. Rajkhowa has argued that a plain reading of the decision of the Full B......
-
W.P. Nos. 8968 and 8969 of 2014. Case: K. Muthusamy Vs The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
...The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected. The Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari v. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 164 held that difficulty in implementation of a Court order is no answer to its non The Supreme Court said:-- "20. It is manifest that in Direction......
-
RC.REV.--180/2013. Case: DEEPAK GUPTA Vs. SUSHMA AGGARWAL. High Court of Delhi (India)
...and as such the review application liable to be dismissed. The Supreme Court in the case of Ansari and Anr. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 164 para 17 was pleased to hold that an application for review cannot be entertained only for the purpose of rehearing of the case. Supreme Cour......
-
Civil Review No. 33 of 2010. Case: Alfons Sushil Minz Vs Kinu Oraon and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court
...At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Ansari v. Indian Airlines, Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 164; wherein it has been held...." it is trite that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment merely for the purpose of rehearing an......
-
Writ Petition (C) No. 1639 of 2009. Case: Mukut Kalita Vs State of Assam and Ors.. Guwahati High Court
...the learned Counsel has also pressed into service the decisions of the Apex Court in Ka Ansari and Anr. v. Indian Airlines Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 164 and State of Haryana and Ors. v. M.P. Mohla (2007) 1 SCC 7. Per contra, Mr. Rajkhowa has argued that a plain reading of the decision of the Full B......
-
W.P. Nos. 8968 and 8969 of 2014. Case: K. Muthusamy Vs The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
...The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected. The Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari v. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 164 held that difficulty in implementation of a Court order is no answer to its non The Supreme Court said:-- "20. It is manifest that in Direction......
-
RC.REV.--180/2013. Case: DEEPAK GUPTA Vs. SUSHMA AGGARWAL. High Court of Delhi (India)
...and as such the review application liable to be dismissed. The Supreme Court in the case of Ansari and Anr. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 164 para 17 was pleased to hold that an application for review cannot be entertained only for the purpose of rehearing of the case. Supreme Cour......
-
Civil Review No. 33 of 2010. Case: Alfons Sushil Minz Vs Kinu Oraon and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court
...At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Ansari v. Indian Airlines, Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 164; wherein it has been held...." it is trite that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment merely for the purpose of rehearing an......
