Dismissed

Toms Ignatius v. the Chairman & Managing Director, Air India Ltd.

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016WP(C)/20838/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the respondent, Air India Ltd, to consider and pass a considered order on the petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment within six weeks, considering his eligibility under the 'out of turn basis' scheme.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider and pass a considered order on the pending representation within six weeks from the date of judgment.

Toms Ignatius Vs the Chairman & Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20838 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

TOMS IGNATIOUS, S/O.C.L.IGNATIOUS, MUNDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA -688 546.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, AIR INDIA LTD, AIR LINES HOUSE, 113, GURUDUARA RAKABGANJ, NEW DELHI - 110 001, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶11

2. THE MANAGER, PERSONNEL, AIR INDIA LTD, OLD AIR PORT, SANTACRUZ, MUMBAI- 400 029.

¶12

3. THE MANAGER, AIR INDIA LTD, AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033.

¶14

BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR,SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 20838 of 2016 (D)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD WITH REFERENCE NO.HRD-R/00T/UG/449 DATED 10/11/2008

¶21

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CARD ISSUED BY THE COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED

¶22

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/4/2016

¶23

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/3/2016 IN WPC.NO. 12369/2016.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P.(C).No.20838 Of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 21st day of June, 2016.

¶32

It is averred that the petitioner is the legal heir of deceased employee of the 1st respondent-Air India Limited, which is a fully owned Government of India undertaking. Petitioner's father, Sri.C.L.Ignatious, died while he was in service of the 1st respondentCorporation and so it is averred that the petitioner is entitled to get a suitable job in the 1st respondent-Corporation as per the scheme for appointment on compassionate basis which was then in force, namely, appointment by “out of turn basis”. The petitioner was called for an interview and that he was later subjected to undergo a medical test. That thereafter no communication in connection with the offer of employment was received by the petitioner from the office of the respondents, it is averred. It is further averred that the petitioner was therefore constrained to submit Ext.P-3 representation dated 4.4.2016, which is still pending consideration before the Managing Director of the 1st respondent-Air India Limited. It is pointed out that Ext.P-4 judgment dated 31.3.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C).

¶33

::2::

¶34

W.P.(C).No.20838 Of 2016

¶35

No.12369/2016, which was filed by a similarly placed claimant, wherein this Court had directed the 1st respondent to pass a speaking order on his representation, etc. In the light of these facts and

¶36

circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition seeking

¶37

the following prayers:

¶38

“i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the petitioner is entitled for a suitable permanent job in the company of the 1st respondent on the basis of the interview held pursuant to Exhibit P1.

¶39

ii) to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner in any of the suitable post in the company of the 1st respondent in accordance with law.

¶40

iii) to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass a speaking order on Exhibit P3 representation.

¶41

iv) issue such other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”

¶42

Sri.Joby Syriac, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits

¶43

that the limited prayer that is sought for by the petitioner is only for a direction from this court to ensure that the 1st respondent takes a considered decision of Ext.P-3 representation without any further delay.

¶44

Heard Sri.Joby Syriac, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶45

Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned Standing Counsel for Air India, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶46

In view of the facts and circumstances disclosed in the

¶47

pleadings in the Writ Petition and in the light of the limited prayer

¶48

::3::

¶49

W.P.(C).No.20838 Of 2016

¶50

sought for by the petitioner and without going into the merits of the controversy in the pleadings in this case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that in case Ext.P-3 representation dated 4.4.2016 is still pending disposal, then the 1st respondent shall take up the same for consideration without any further delay and pass a considered order thereon without much delay, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner's specific contention that he was eligible for appointment under the scheme of “out of turn basis” at the time of submission of his application at which point of time when the said scheme was in force and his further contention that the expiry or replacement of such scheme by any new scheme shall not be a ground for rejection of his claim, should also be considered while taking the decision.

¶51

With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶52

bkn/-

Toms Ignatius v. the Chairman & Managing Director, Air India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toms Ignatius v. the Chairman & Managing Director, Air India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Bhadran Vs State of Kerala

K.D.Gopalakrishnan Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

K.P.Satheer Vs State of Kerala

Vasu K.K & Another Vs State of Kerala & Another

Baby Vs Subin P.J.