DEEP SRIVASTAVA Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 18.12.1999 issued by the respondent No. 3 asking the respondent No. 4 to direct the petitioner to appear for a test at the Corporate Office of Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi and further for a direction upon the respondents to assign flying duty to the petitioner and to avail of his services in proportion with the other Pilots including respondent No. 5.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the services of the respondent -SAIL as pilot officer. The petitioner was duly granted a commercial pilot licence for flying the Aircraft. The petitioners case is that in order to retain a commercial pilot licence a person has to fly a minimum of 40 hours every year to obtain the validity and renewal of his licence. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he is the regular employee of SAIL but he has not been permitted to fly the aircraft of SAIL and on the other hand, they are engaging another person to fly the aircraft. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents to assign him duty in order to retain the licence but instead of assigning duty the petitioner was asked by the respondent No. 3 to appear in a written test.

(3.) THE respondents case is that they were repairing their aircraft which is stationed at Ranchi being a BEECH CRAFT TWIN BONANZA, which was to be flown by the petitioner. It was stated that the respondents have turbo prop type of Super King B -200 aircraft at Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. The petitioner does not have flying skills on the said Super King B -200 aircraft at Bokaro. The petitioner made representation for posting at Bokaro and as such, considering the background and type of flying experience of the petitioner it was decided to subject him to a written/oral test in operational applications and technical aspects to assess his, suitability and the related requirements to fly such aircraft. It is stated that unless the petitioner is found to be competent and having assessed flying skills on Super King B -200 aircraft and having obtained endorsement in his licence from the competent authority for flying such aircraft, he cannot be assigned flying duty in proportion with the other pilot of the respondents.