Dismissed

K.Krishna Mohan Rao, Hyderabad and 5 Ors. v. Indian Airlines Ltd., N.Delhi and 4 Ors.

Telangana HC25 Feb 2025WP/11773/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees sought attendant service benefits attached to the Senior Technical Assistant post citing earlier favorable High Court judgments. The court held that following privatization of Air India, the company ceased to be 'State' under Article 12, so the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it with liberty to approach an appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

None; petitioners given liberty to seek redressal before appropriate forum, no costs.

K.Krishna Mohan Rao, Hyderabad and 5 Ors… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE.STAT,E^{OF TELANGANA} . AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY^{FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:11773^{OF 2005}

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.KRISHNA MOHAN^{RAo, S/o Late Sri K.Gopalakrishna,Senior Technical} nssisiint,^{(Emp.No.616737), lndianAir LinesLtd , Hyderabad'}

¶10

K.G.Prasad. S/o^{K.N.B.Rao, Engineering Support officer(Emp No'616605)'} lndian Air Lines Ltd.,^HYderabad.

¶11

3' K.Padma^{Rao, S/o Sri K,lsthari, Senior Technical Assistant (Emp.No.6165a1)} lndian Air..Lines Ltd.,^HYderabad.

¶12

4'J.SeshaSai'S/oSriJ.J.P.Sastry,SeniorTechnicalAssistant (Emp.No.616508), lndian Air^{LinesLtd.,Hyderabad'}

¶13

N.Balakrishna^{Rao, Sio N.P.SubrahmanyeswaraRao, SeniorTechnical} - n.!Gt"nt tEmp.No.61691 5)' lndian Air Lines Ltd ' Hyderabad'

¶14

c.sanieeva Prasad,^{S/o C.V.L.PrasadaRao, Engineeringsupport officer} (Empt. No.680168), lndian Air^{Lines Ltd., Hyderabad'}

¶15

.....PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

1 lndian Airlines Ltd., Head Quarters,^{Airlines House 1 13, Gurudwara} Rakabganj Road, New^{Delhirep.,by its Managing Director'}

¶18

2 The Director, Engineering,^{lndian Air LinesLtd, Head Quarters, Air Lines} House, r tS,'Guridwara^{Rakabganj Road, New Delhi'}

¶19

3 The Regional^{Director,lndianAir LinesLtd., SouthernRoad, Air Lines House,} vteLnarioat<t<am, Madras.

¶20

4 TheDirector,Personnel,lndianAirLinesLtd',HeadQuarters,AirLines House, 113, Gurudwara^{Rakabganj Road, New Delhi'}

¶21

4 The General Manager^{(Engineering), lndian Air LinesLtd, Southern Region'} Hyderabad.

¶22

.....RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be}

¶24

pleased to issue a Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declari ng the action of the respondents in not paying the attendant I service benefits att ched to the post of Senior Technical Assistants of Technical Cadre, though they are entitled for the same in terms of judgments of this Hon'ble Cou( in WP No.8090/'1992 dated 1611111999 and WP No.6760/2001 dt.3t9t2oo1 confirmed in WA 143312001 dated 191612002 as arbitrary, iilegat, improper and u nco nstitutio na I and further declare that the petitioners are entifled for the attendant benefits as detailed in the schedule annexed to the material papers filed along with the writ petition.

¶25

l.A.NO:1 OF 2005 (WPMP.NO: 15007 0F 2005)

¶26

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith pay all the attendant benefits including pLl to Senior Technical Assistants on par with other Technical Cadre Employees as described in the schedule pending disposal of this writ petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI N.BHARAT BABU

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents : M/s V.UMA DEVI

¶29

The Court made the following ORDER

¶30

¶31

(-)

¶32

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH^BHEEMAPAKA

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.^{11773 OF 2OO5}

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

The present Writ Petition is^{Frled_questioningthe} action of respondent in not^{paying attendant service benefits} attached to the post of Senior^{Technical Assistants of Technical} Cadre though they are^{entitledforthe same intermsof} judgments of this Hon'b1e Court in Writ Petition^{No. 8090 of} 1992 dated 16.11.1999 and^{Writ Petition No. 6760 of 2OOl} dated 03.09.2001 confirmed^{in Writ Appeal No 1433 of 20Oi} dated 19.O6.2OO2 as arbitrary^{and illegal. Further, a declaration} is sought that^{petitionersare entitled for attendant benefits as} rctained in the schedule.

¶36

On receipt of notice,^{respondentsfiled counter} affidavit denying the allegations^{and explaining the reasons for} not entitlement of the^{benehts as sought by petitioncrs.} 3. Heard Sri P. Gangaiah^{Naidu, Iearned Senior} Counsel on behalf of Sri^{N.BharatBabu, learnedcounsel for} petitioners

¶37

4 Learned Standing Counsel^{lorrespondentMs} V.Uma Dcvi has brought to the^{notice ofthis Courtthe}

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in lfe R.S. Madireddg u. UOI, rvherein it is observed that respondent Organization i.e. AIR India Limited is a Statutory Body under thc Air Corporations Act, 1953. With the repeal of 1853 Act by the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1994, the Air India merged u,ith Indian Airlines and consequently, respondent Organization became a wholly Government-owned Company, thus came undr:r the category of other alrthorities, within the mcaning ol Article l2 of thc Constitution of India. Howevcr, on 08.10.2021, lhc Government of India has announced that it had acccpted the bid of Talace lnclia h.t. Ltd. to purchase its 10096 shares in respondent Organization. The rea[fer, on 27 .O1,.2022, the share purchasc agreemcnt rr,,as signed with Talace India Pvt. Ltd., wherein looo/o equity shares of the^(iovenrmenL of India in AIR India Limited u,erre purchased by Talace India Private Limited and thereb.r,, respondent Organization was privatizcd and disinvested by the Government of India. Consequently, respondent Organization ceased to be a State or its instrumentality within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. Once respond ent Organization is ceased to be

¶42

'^{202+ SCC} online SC 965

I i i i

I t

covered by the^{dehnition of 'State', itcould not have been} subjected to writ^{jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe} Constitution as the^{Article itself would make it abundantiyclear} that direction,^{ordersor Writs including the Writs in the nature} of Habeas Corpus,^{Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto and} Prohibition to any authority^{of State or instrumentalities of} State, bul not to a^{Private Limited Company'}

¶47

Therefore, this Writ^{Petition, which was instituted} on 23.01.20O5,^{bv u'hich time the respondent Organization rvas} already privatized,^{is not maintainableunder Article 226 oi the} Constitution of India.

¶48

It is further held^{by the Hon'bleSupremeCourt as}

¶49

under

¶50

"37. The respondent^{No'3 (AlL), the erstwhile Governmentrun} airtine having^{beentaken over by the privatecomPanyTalace IndiaR't' Ltd} ' unquestionablv,^{is not performingany publicduty inasmuch as it has takcn} over the Government^{companyAir lndiaLimitedforthe purpose of} commercial operations,^{plain and simple,and thusno writ petitionis} maintainabte against^{respondent No.3 (AIL) '"}

¶51

Learned Standing^{Counsel further broughtto the} notice of the Court^{that writ petition was institutedagainst Air} India, subsequently^{which has been renamedas Air India'} however, no cause^{title was amended Therefore, she submitted}

¶52

¶53

¶54

that no Writ Pctition lies agair-rst Indian Airlines as well as Air India which is a private owned company.

¶55

I n vie w of the above settled proposition of law, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition {rled against AIR India as not maintainable.

¶56

The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed, granting liberty to petitioner to approach appropnate Forum for redressal of their grievance, as per larv. Hou,ever, it is needlcss to mention that it is alu'avs open for respondents to consider Appeals/ representations file d br. petitioncrs, in ac<:ordance with law. No costs.

¶57