Disposed

Capt Anand Sarup Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan, Chairman and Managing Director of Air India

Delhi HC10 Dec 2018CONT.CAS(C)/544/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench allowed applications for impleadment of additional parties to a writ petition and a contempt petition filed for non-payment of arrears. The Court dismissed the contempt petition and directed a representation to be filed with the General Manager alleging non-payment of specific arrears.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file an individual representation to General Manager (Personnel) regarding unpaid arrears; representation to be considered within a specified time.

Capt Anand Sarup Bhardwaj & Ors. Vs Rohit Nandan… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~54

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 544/2013

¶4

CAPT ANAND SARUP BHARDWAJ & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shaurya Sharma, Mr. Ankit Khurana and Mr. Shubhangda Singh, Advocates

¶5

Versus

¶6

ROHIT NANDAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF AIR INDIA .....Respondent Through: Counsel (appearance not given)

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 10.12.2018

¶10

C.M. 22862/2015 (delay)

¶11

There is delay of 710 days in filing the application for impleadment.

¶12

Upon hearing, I find that the delay has occurred due to inadvertence of the previous counsel as the applicants now sought to be impleaded as the parties, are already party in the writ petition. The delay is condoned and the application is allowed.

¶13

The application is disposed of.

¶14

C.M. 22861/2015 (for impleadment)

¶15

By way of this application, impleadment of some of petitioners as parties to the writ petition is sought on the ground that due to inadvertence of the previous counsel, the applicants could not be

¶16

CONT.CAS(C) 544/2013

¶17

Page 1

¶18

impleaded in the contempt petition. It is submitted that the case of applicants is identical to case of petitioner in the contempt petition.

¶19

The order of which contempt is alleged, refers to an undertaking of respondent to pay the arrears of pay etc. as per the decision of the Bombay High Court.

¶20

Upon hearing, I find that impleadment of the applicants is required in this contempt petition. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicants are impleaded as co-petitioners in the contempt petition.

¶21

The amended Memo of Parties of 29^th September, 2015 filed alongwith this application is taken on record.

¶22

CONT.CAS(C) 544/2013

¶23

The order of which contempt is alleged in this petition is of 18^th May, 2012 which disposes of petitioners’ writ petition on an undertaking given by respondents to the effect that the case of petitioners for payment of arrears of pay etc. would be considered in terms of the order of 23^rd November, 2011 of the Bombay High Court.

¶24

According to learned counsel for respondents it has been so done. The reply filed in this petition reveals that the arrears of pay etc. has been paid for the relevant period. This is disputed by petitioners’ counsel who submits that the arrears of salary from 1^st January, 2007 to 31^st October, 2007 alongwith arrears of flying allowances has not been paid to petitioners.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondents submits that the Pilots who have engaged on contract basis are not entitled to revised Flying Allowances and arrears of salary for the aforesaid period as these salary and

¶26

CONT.CAS(C) 544/2013

¶27

Page 2

¶28

allowances are payable to the regular pilots. Aforesaid aspect cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings.

¶29

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioners to make an individual Representation to General Manager (Personnel) of respondentAir India Limited. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that it will be so done within a period of six weeks. If any such Representation is received by the General Manager (Personnel) of respondent-Air India Limited, then it be effectively considered and a speaking response thereto, be given within a period of twelve weeks from the day when the Representations are received, so that petitioners can avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

¶30

With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶31

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶32

DECEMBER 10, 2018

¶33

¶34

CONT.CAS(C) 544/2013

¶35

Page 3

Capt Anand Sarup Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan, Chairman and Managing Director of Air India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Capt Anand Sarup Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Rohit Nandan, Chairman and Managing Director of Air India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Bisht Vs Parveen Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Ram Karan Rai & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ghanshyam Madan Vs Karamveer Singh Narwal

Kajal Kanti Nath Vs S K Pattanayak, Secretary & Ors.

Shashi Kandwal & Anr. Vs Dr Puneet Kumar Goel & Ors.

Chander Malik Vs Om Parkash Malik

Kamla Devi Sohanraj Singhvi Jain College of Education Vs Sanjay Awasthi & Anr.

Reema Salkan Vs Sumer Singh Salkan

Jyoti Bisht Vs Parveen Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Ram Karan Rai & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kajal Kanti Nath Vs S K Pattanayak, Secretary & Ors.

Amita Gandoak Vs Raj Pal Meena Sub Registrar Iii, Asaf Ali Road and Anr.

Mgmt. of Cantonment Board Merr Vs Preetam Singh

D.T.C. Vs Yad Ram