C B SAINI Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner were originally appointed as Trainee Pilots by Vayudoot. There respective dales of appointments are as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_518_DRJ53_2000Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) Challenging the action of the Respondents, Mr. M.P. Raju, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that as per the terms of appointment letters issued to these Petitioners by Vayudoot Ltd all the four Petitioners were specifically appointed for Dornier 228 Aircraft. The Respondents did not permit the Petitioners to complete their training on the pretext of non-availability of Aircrafts. The Petitioners continued on nominal allowance for so many years and they represented several times to the Respondents to complete their training. Even though the Petitioners had cleared successfully part of the training the Respondents did not allow them to complete the training on the ground that a number of Dornier aircraft were grounded (vide letter dated 10.12.90 issued by the Training Co-ordinator). Thereafter, vide letter dated 14.12.90 it was stated that all flying training is held in abeyance. Even as per the letter of the Respondent dated 21/6/91, the petitioner's training could not be undertaken due to fuel crisis and financial constraints. Similarly vide letter dated 23/4/92, the Respondents also said that the training of the Petitioners could not be undertaken due to fuel crisis and financial constraints. The Respondents did not complete the training of the Petitioners and the Petitioners represented several times for the completion of their training and also for-granting the post and scale of co-pilot. On 6/10/93, the respondensts raised the stipend of the Petitioner from Rs. 2000.00 to Rs. 3,500.00 wherein the Respondents have admitted the completion of the training has been unduly delayed. Accordingly, it was submitted that it was the duty of Respondent-Vayudoot lo complete the training of the Petitioners and give the employment to the Petitioners on regular basis for which promise was given by the Respondents and even bond taken from the Petitioners. It was further submitted that even Indian Airlines discriminated qua the Petitioners by only leaving out the four Petitioners from the training and giving the training to others and even those who were juniors to the Petitioners. Even if Dornier Aircrafts were not available, others and juniors were given training on Avro Aircrafts but Petitioners were denied the same. This action of the Respondents was violative of Principles of Legitimate Expectation especially since the Petitioners had been made to wait for the training and endorsement for almost 9 years and as the Petitioners have already undergone the training on Dornier 228 Aircraft and have the certificates of training on such Aircrafts whereas the colleagues who are being preferred do not have the said training. It was further submitted that on the one hand the Petitioners who were already available with the Respondents were denied the training and opportunity of flying, on the other hand Respondents were engaging Pilots on contract basis which was clearly uncalled for action of the Respondents. The Respondents were bound by the Principles of Promissory Estoppel to complete the training of the Petitioners and absorb them in service. In support of this proposition, reliance was also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Suryanar-ayan Yadav and Others v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others reported in 1985 (Suppl) SCR 605.

(3.) The Respondents on the other hand in their counter-affidavit have refuted the various allegations made by the Petitioners. It has been submitted that Petitioners I and 3 joined Vayudoot as Operation Assistants and on acquiring the Commercial Pilot Licence later they were appointed as Trainee Pilots as internal candidates against the internal vacancies.