LAWS(BOM)-2006-11-27

MEETA RAHUL MALIK Vs. AIR INDIA LIMITED

Decided On November 24, 2006
MEETA RAHUL MALIK Appellant
V/S
AIR INDIA LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondent to restore to the petitioner her seniority and the salary and the rates of flying allowances applicable to her.

(2.) The petitioner joined respondent-Air india on 7. 6. 1982 and she was placed between C. Miranda (Nee Ms. C. T. Periera) and v. Bhuse in the seniority list of Air Hostesses. In May, 1988, the petitioner met with an accident in the flight during the course of her flight duties. While she was in the aircraft during the course of her duties, she sustained a head injury. On account of the said head injury, the petitioner had to undergo extensive medical treatment including psychiatric treatment. During this long period, the petitioner was treated in the Air India hospital or in hospitals approved by Air India. In July/august, 1997, the petitioner regained fitness and re-offered her services to the respondent as an Air Hostess. On 12. 8. 1997, the petitioner was reinstated by the respondent. However, the petitioner was not paid the flying allowances as paid to C. Miranda and V. Bhuse. The petitioner sent representation that she is entitled to the allowances as paid to C. Miranda and V. Bhuse, that is she is entitled to the allowances as applicable to Grade 25 and not as applicable to Grade 16 in which she had been put. In october, 1997, the petitioner's allowances were revised to those applicable to Grade 25. The petitioner was also paid arrears of difference in allowances in august and September, 1997. The petitioner continued to be paid allowances as applicable to Grade 25 upto july, 1998.

(3.) However, on 24,7. 1998, the petitioner received a D/r message indicating that she is in Grade 18 and that the rate of allowances applicable to her, are reduced to those applicable to Grade 18. By letter dated 5. 8. 1998, the petitioner objected to the said change without any notice or hearing. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the petitioner filed this petition.