Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Airports Authority Of India vs Dilip Bhushan on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10639 OF 2010
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DILIP BHUSHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Calcutta on 20.12.2007, whereby the writ petition against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 07.08.2003 was dismissed.
Respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as Aerodrome Assistant on 03.02.1986 and posted to Dum Dum Airport at Calcutta under the Civil Aviation Department i.e. prior to creation of National Airports Authority (now named as Airports Authority of India) under the National Airport Authorities Act, 1985. There was a condition that all employees of Civil Aviation shall be treated on Deputation with the Airports Authority of India and shall hold office on the same terms and conditions as in the parent Department. Section 13(3) of the National Airports Signature Not Verified Authorities Act, 1985 gave an option to the employees Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2022.09.17 12:52:57 IST Reason: to seek permanent absorption in the Authority. As per this option, if an employee is not ready to opt, he shall not be absorbed by the Authority. 2 Section 13(3) is reproduced thus :-
“Every employee holding any office under the Director-General of Civil Aviation immediately before the commencement of this Act solely or mainly for or in connection with such affairs of the Directorate-General of Civil Aviation as are relevant to the functions of the Authority under this Act as may be determined by the Central Government shall be treated as on deputation with the Authority but shall hold his office in the Authority by the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions of service as respects remuneration, leave, provident fund, retirement or other terminal benefits as he would have held such office, if the Authority had not been constituted and shall continue to do so until the Authority duly absorbs such employee in its regular service: Provided that during the period of deputation of any such employee with the Authority, the Authority shall pay the Central Government in respect of every such employee such contribution towards his leave, salary, pension and gratuity as the Central Government may, by order determine: Provided further that any such employee, who has, in respect of the proposal of the Authority to absorb him in his regular service, intimated within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Authority his intention of not becoming a regular 3 employee of the Authority, shall not be absorbed by the Authority.” Respondent No. 1, along with 72 other Aerodrome Assistants, was deputed to National Airports Authority. However, in the year 1989, an option was sought from all such employees so deputed, including the applicant, to exercise option for absorption.
The respondent did not opt for absorption.
Consequently, his name was sent to Surplus Cell of the Government of India. As a part of the Surplus Cell, his name was sent to the Geological Survey of India, after release from the Civil Aviation Department on 22.03.1994, for his posting as Accountant. However, the respondent refused to serve the said post and exercised his option for being absorbed in Airports Authority of India. However, the respondent was not allowed to revise his option as his previous option of being absorbed was not exercised by him. As a result, the respondent was neither posted in the Ministry nor he joined Geological Survey of India.
The respondent invoked the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal under The Administrative Tribunals’ Act, 1985 vide OA No. 1180 of 1995. The OA was allowed on 28.09.1999 with a direction to the Director General of Civil Aviation 4 to consider and decide the case of the respondent according to the observations made in the said order.
The writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed on 03.05.2000. However, on 05.07.2000, the Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation passed an order rejecting the claim of the respondent in the following words :-
“The cadre of aerodrome Assistant and the post of Aerodrome Assistant does not exist under the Directorate General of Civil Aviation consequent upon the transfer of the concerned discipline to the NAA. Under the circumstances, you cannot be permitted to under the Directorate General of Civil Aviation. Your case has been examined keeping in view the observations of the Honourable CAT. The statutory requirements under the NAA Act, 1985 and the instructions issued by the Government under CCS (Redployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 does not allow this Department to either let you automatically become absorbed in the NAA or continue in work in the DGCA.” The respondent again challenged the said order before the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 5 74 of 2002. The order passed by the office of the Director General of Civil Aviation was set aside on 07.08.2003. The directions already issued in the first original application was ordered to be complied with, in next three months. It is the said order of the Tribunal, which was challenged by way of a writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed vide the order impugned in the present appeal.
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, contends that it could not be pointed out by the respondent that in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 07.08.2003, any order was passed by the office of the Director General of Civil Aviation. Therefore, the effective order is that of 05.07.2000. Though the said order has been set aside but there is no order on record to show that the respondent has joined either the office of the Director General of Civil Aviation or the Airports Authority of India. There is a lack of clarity as to whether the respondent had worked, at all. It is the case of the respondent that he attained the age of superannuation from the Airports Authority of India on 31.01.2021. But there is no document on record to support the fact that he was permitted to join Airports Authority of India at any point of time.
6
Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the High Court and that by the Central Administrative Tribunal passed on 07.08.2003 and restore OA No. 74 of 2002 to its original number. The learned Tribunal is requested to decide the question of the status of the respondent herein and as to whether the respondent has been reinstated, if at all or joined which Department/ Authority after the order dated 07.08.2003 was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Since the matter is old, we hope that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall take up the matter and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date the parties appear before the Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal, Kolkata Bench on 07.11.2022.
In view of above, the civil appeal is disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
.......................J. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] .......................J. [ SUDHANSHU DHULIA ] New Delhi;
SEPTEMBER 13, 2022.
7
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.7 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 10639/2010
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DILIP BHUSHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 13-09-2022 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA Counsel for the parties Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG Ms. Rukhmini S. Bobde, Adv.
Ms. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Adv.
Mr. Amrish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Tathagat Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Amrish Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Neeta Sharma, Adv.
for M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Adv. Mr. S. C. Ghosh, Adv.
Ms. Vandana Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR 8 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)