S JAGANNATHA RAO Vs. AIR INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant was appointed in the Indian Airlines as Aircraft Engineer (Maintenance) on 16.05.1979. Thereafter, on 03.11.1982, he was appointed as Flight Engineer under the direct recruitment quota and posted at the Southern Region. The Appellant possessed a licence for the A300-B2/B4 aircraft, which required a three member cockpit crew comprising a commander/captain, first officer and flight engineer. A meeting was held on 29.04.1998 in connection with the proposed phasing-out of the A300-B2/B4 aircraft from its fleet and the consequential necessity to rehabilitate flight engineers because the aircraft that was proposed to replace the A300-B2/B4 aircraft would not require a flight engineer as part of the cockpit crew. It was decided that in the event of redundancy, the flight engineers would be rehabilitated in other jobs either as pilots or in desk jobs in other departments.

(2.) Thereafter, several memoranda of settlement were executed by and between the Indian Flight Engineers Association and the Indian Airlines Limited. While it is not necessary to refer to all of them, they are discussed to the extent necessary for purposes of this judgment. The Memorandum of Settlement dated 01.03.2000 dealt with and provided for payment of compensation to flight engineers who are temporarily medically unfit (TMU). The Memorandum of Settlement dated 24.01.2002 stipulated that flight engineers who are provided with alternative employment would be eligible for protection of their basic pay within the scale of pay that they are appointed in and that if they opt for a job, other than in the cadre of pilot, they would be considered for posts in the cadre opted for by them. Another Memorandum of Settlement was entered into between the management of Indian Airlines Limited and the Indian Flight Engineers' Association on 31.08.2006. Clause 2A of the Memorandum of Settlement provided for the payment of compensation to flight engineers and senior flight engineers who are declared to be TMU. The said compensation was payable after the date when the Flight Engineer concerned last exercised the privilege of his licence.

(3.) Meanwhile, Indian Airlines underwent multiple transformations, including re-branding as Indian, restructuring as the National Aviation Company of India Limited before eventually merging with Air India Limited. The A300-B2/B4 aircraft were completely phased out from the fleet of Air India Limited on 31.03.2008. Around this time, the Appellant became ill and underwent surgery on 11.04.2008. Therefore, he was provided TMU and a sum of Rs.5,05,355/- was paid to him on this account between April 2008 and March 2009. On 12.03.2009, he was informed that he was found suitable for appointment as Deputy General Manager (Material Management) and that he would continue to draw his current basic salary. By reply dated 16.04.2009, the Appellant accepted the appointment under protest on the ground that the offer of appointment is not in accordance with the rehabilitation scheme that was approved on 29.04.2008. Thereafter, by a communication dated 15.09.2009 from the General Manager (Finance) to the Executive Director of the respondents, it was informed that an opinion had been obtained from the Respondents' lawyers to the effect that, after the A-300 aircraft were completely phased out by end-March 2008, flights engineers do not incur loss of earnings when they are medically unfit. The compensation cases were, therefore, directed to be dealt with by bearing in mind the above. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated 16.11.2009, the Appellant was called upon to repay the TMU compensation of Rs.5,05,355/-. In these facts and circumstances, he filed the writ petition to quash the communication dated 16.11.2009 and to direct the Respondents to provide a suitable appointment to him in the Engineering Department or in any other equivalent post wherein the drawings and grade of the Appellant/Petitioner as flight engineer are protected. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 09.09.2019, which is impugned herein.