Bombay High Court
Western Region vs Airports Authority Of India on 26 August, 2014
Author: A.K. Menon
Bench: V.M. Kanade, A.K. Menon
wp2518-13.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2518 OF 2013
Mrs. S. Mangala ]
aged 45 years, DGM (Aviation Safety) ]
Western Region, Airports Authority of India, ]
residing at CE-2, AAI Residential Colony, ]
Juhu Airport, Nanavati Hospital, ]
Mumbai - 400 056. ] ..Petitioner
V/s.
1. Airports Authority of India, ]
through its Chairman, CHQ, ]
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung, ]
New Delhi - 100 003. ]
]
2. Mr.J.Dasgupta, ]
General Manager (ATM) , Mumbai, ]
Airports Authority of India, New ATS ]
Complex, Sutar Pakhadi Road, Near ]
Sahar Cargo, Mumbai - 400 099. ]
]
3. Mr. P.K.Nagpal, ]
Executive Director (Engineering), ]
CHQ Airports Authority of India, ]
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung, ]
New Delhi - 110 003. ]
1/26
::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
4. Mr. Raju Dureha, ]
General Manager (HR), ]
CHQ, Airports Authority of India, ]
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung, ]
New Delhi - 110 003. ]
]
5. Mr. Vilas Bhujang, ]
Executive Director (HR), ]
CHQ Airports Authority of India, ]
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung, ]
New Delhi - 110 003. ]
ig ]
6. Mr. A.K. Sharma, ]
The Regional Executive Director, ]
WR, Airports Authority of India, ]
Porta cabin, New Airport Colony, ]
Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400 099. ]
]
7. Ministry of Civil Aviation, ]
through its Principal Secretary, ]
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung, ]
New Delhi - 110 003. ] ..Respondents.
Mrs.S.Mangala - the petitioner in person.
Mr. Ajay Khaire i/b. The Law Point for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6.
Mr. Jamshed Mistry, Senior Advocate - Amicus Curiae
Mr.R.R. Shetty with Mr.A.R.Verma for Respondent No.7.
CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND
A.K. MENON, JJ.
DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2014
2/26
::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 :::
wp2518-13.sxw
JUDGMENT (PER A.K. MENON, J.)
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement forthwith the paragraphs (b) & (c) of the Office Memorandum dated 11th September, 2008 ("DoPT OM") issued by the Department of Personnel & Training of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India (DoPT) with retrospective effect from 1 st September, 2008 and also the subsequent DoPT OM's issued regarding clarifications / amendments and also for direction to quash and set aside the office memorandum dated 15th July, 2014 and the subsequent intra office memo dated 15th March, 2011 whereby the petitioner is directed to submit her reply / explanation as to why she proceeded on leave without prior sanction.
3. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner is employed as the Deputy General Manager (Aviation Safety), Western Region of respondent No.1, the Airports Authority of India. Respondent No.1 (AAI) is a public sector undertaking in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, which is responsible for the administration and management of all the airports in the country.
3/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 :::wp2518-13.sxw Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the executives of respondent No.1. The Government of India issued a notification dated 23rd May, 2003 titled Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003 (AAI Regulations).
The AAI issued a notification dated 13th June, 2003 titled as AAI Leave Regulations, 2003 which laid down rules and procedures for applying for / granting of leave to various employees of AAI. These rules were framed in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) read with clause (b) of sub-section (2) & (4) of section 42 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994.
4. On 11th September, 2008 the DoPT issued an office memorandum dated 11th September, 2008 consequent upon the decision taken by the government on the recommendation of the sixth pay commission relating to maternity leave and child care leave (CCL) whereby the existing provisions of the Central Government of India Services Rules, 1972 were enhanced. The relevant portion of the said office memorandum reads as under:-
" Consequent upon the decisions taken by the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission relating to Maternity Leave and Child Care Leave, the President is pleased to decide that the existing provisions of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 will be treated as modified as 4/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw follows in respect of civilian employees of the Central Government:-
(a) .....
(b) .....
(c) Women employees having minor children may be granted Child Care Leave by an authority competent to grant leave, for a maximum period of two years (i.e. 730 days) during their entire service for taking care of upto two children whether for rearing or to look after any of their needs like examination, sickness etc. Child Care Leave shall not be admissible if the child is eighteen years of age or older. During the period of such leave, the women employees shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. It may be availed of in more than one spell. Child Care Leave shall not be debited against the leave account. Child Care Leave may also be allowed for the third year as Leave not due (without production of medical certificate). It may be combined with leave of the kind due and admissible."
5. It will be useful to analyse the effect of this clause. It applies to women employees having minor children, who may be granted leave by the competent authority for a maximum period of two years during their entire service for taking care of not more than two children. The leave could be for rearing the children or to look after any of their needs. The said CCL was not available to a child of 18 5/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw years or age or older. If women employees avail of such a leave, they shall be paid leave salary equal to the pay drawn immediately before proceeding on leave. Regulation 2 of the aforesaid memorandum was to take effect from 1st September, 2008.
6. Vide an office memorandum dated 3rd March, 2010, the DoPT issued directions to all the Ministries and departments further directing waiver of age restriction of 18 years mentioned in regulation
(c) of the office memorandum of 11th September, 2008 in respect of disabled / mentally challenged children. It was decided that CCL to women with disabled children would be permissible upto the age of 22 years for a maximum period of 2 years. It was however clarified that CCL cannot be demanded as a matter of right and under no circumstances the employee could proceed on CCL without prior approval or sanction of the authority. Moreover, the memorandum also specifies that the provisions was applicable only if disabled child has a minimum disability of 40%.
7. The petitioner has two children, one a 12 year old with disability. It is the petitioner's case that the AAI has not implemented the CCL provision for the benefit of its employees although it is bound to. It is the petitioner's case that the non-implementation of the CCL by 6/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw AAI amounts to violation of the right of the petitioner's second daughter, who suffers from disability of ADHD, dysarthria and dysgraphia and that CCL would be great assistance to the petitioner to help her second child during the times of examination, fitness and medical check-up.
On 18th February, 2011 the petitioner applied for three days casual leave on 21st, 22nd and 23rd February, 2011, prefixing 19th & 20th February, 2011, being Saturday & Sunday with a request for permission to leave station to go to her brother's house at Gandhinagar. Her leave application which is annexed at page 134 of the petition shows that due to a meeting scheduled at New Delhi on 22nd February 2011 which she was to attend, leave was not sanctioned. Sanction was declined on the very day of her application and it is only on receipt of the application that she was made aware of the meeting supposed to be held on 22nd February, 2011 at New Delhi. In fact, the record reveals that coincidentally a meeting was fixed on 18 th February, 2011 itself by a communication by the AAI office addressed to the Regional Executive Director.
8. The petitioner then contacted the Private Secretary of Shri Alok Sinha, Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, whom she was scheduled to meet in New Delhi to request for a change of date. She was asked to send the request by fax for changing the date and 7/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw thereafter proceed on leave. Apparently, the petitioner was assured that the date would be changed. The petitioner thereafter did proceed to Gandhinagar as per her original plan and the date of the meeting at New Delhi was changed to 24th February, 2011 and thereafter scheduled to 28th February, 2011 on some other person's request.
9. The petitioner thereafter attended the meeting at New Delhi on 28th February, 2011 and after the meeting, she met a few friends at AAI, who reportedly informed her that the AAI board had cleared the file pertaining to implementation of the DoPT OM including CCL with retrospective effect from 1 st September, 2008. Emboldened by the said information, the petitioner, upon her return to Mumbai applied for CCL for 61 days from 14 th March, 2011. It is the petitioner's case that her application was within the provisions of the leave regulations which require that the application for leave of three days or more are to be submitted at least 7 days from the date from which the leave was required.
It transpires that in fact AAI did not implement the entire DoPT OM but only brought into effect paragraph (a) of the said Memorandum whereby maternity leave was enhanced from 135 days to 186 days.
The information the petitioner received was hearsay. Paragraph (c) 8/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw containing the provision for CCL was not adopted by the AAI. From this, it becomes evident that the petitioner was not entitled to apply CCL. It is the petitioner's case that on 10th March, 2011 itself AAI sought policy clarification of New Delhi office on the application of the petitioner for CCL which has been received apparently with the recommendation of respondent No.2 [The respondents however have contended that no such recommendation was made].
10. On 11th March, 2011 the petitioner claims she worked late and completed various assignments and kept the files ready in anticipation of availing her leave, so that her absence would not inconvenience the officer dealing with the files. It is the petitioner's case that respondent No.2 did not inform her that her leave application was not sanctioned and the petitioner proceeded on leave for Chennai because she had not been informed that her leave was not granted.
According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 maliciously issued an intra-office note dated 15th March, 2011, three days after the petitioner had proceeded on leave, stating that she had proceeded on leave without prior permission and had left station without permission of the proper authority and without handing over the charge to anybody and suggesting that necessary action be taken against her.
11. According to the petitioner, she was not required to sign off 9/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw any papers and hand over any charge as the petitioner was only a section head and not head of the department and that in the tour order issued by respondent No.2 himself had noted that the petitioner proceeded on leave and nominated one Mr. Dinasan K.S., Manager to look after her charge during her absence. It transpires that on 30 th May, 2011, the Deputy General Manager (HR), AAI informed the concerned department that there was no provision for granting CCL in AAI leave regulation, 2003 and that the proposal for granting of such a leave was under consideration of the appropriate forum. But in the meantime, the leave of the petitioner is to be adjusted by granting her earned leave or other leave admissible as per the rules.
12. On 11th July, 2011 the Mumbai office issued a letter to the petitioner that the disciplinary action would be taken since her leave was not sanctioned but the letter did not mention that the payment due to her be stopped pursuant to the intra office note dated 3 rd March, 2011. It appears that the letter dated 11 th May, 2011 was delivered at her Chennai address on 3rd June, 2011. It was received by the petitioner only because the petitioner's husband was in Chennai at the material time. The petitioner claims that she was wholly unaware of this development even after she joined duty on 16 th May, 2011 she was not informed that the respondents had issued an intra-office note dated 3rd 10/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw May, 2011 from HR section to the finance section stating that her salary and other dues for the relevant period should not be paid. On 6 th June, 2011 her payment slip for May, 2011 the amount due as nil. She then made an RTI application asking for the decision of the AAI as to non-
implementation of paragraphs (b) & (c) of the DoPT OM. On 17 th June, 2011 the petitioner received an office note regarding her leave that it be adjusted by granting her earned leave or any other leave admissible as per rules till a concrete decision is taken. There is no other order about any disciplinary action to be taken against her.
13. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a revised application on 4th July, 2011 requesting for half pay leave instead of CCL. In doing so, the petitioner acknowledged the fact that she could not insist on CCL. On 8th July, 2011 she received a letter from DGM (HR) section sanctioning her 61 days half pay leave. On 19 th July, 2011, the petitioner received a memorandum dated 15th July, 2011 from the Regional Executive Director, Western Region, Mumbai, who had issued intra office note dated 15th March, 2011 calling upon her to submit written explanation for misconduct in having proceeded on leave without sanction. On 21st July, 2011 the petitioner responded to the accusations of the respondents setting out the details. It is inter alia stated that the firstly intimation that her leave was not granted 11/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw reached her only on 3rd June, 2011 i.e. 18 days after she joined duty on 16th May, 2011 and that it was respondent No.2's fault that he did not return her leave application before she left on leave declining the request. She also highlighted the fact that she had revised her leave application as recommended by the concerned authority and she sought withdrawal of the memo.
14. In her RTI application 30th June, 2011, the petitioner had sought reasons why the provisions of CCL had not been incorporated in the policy of AAI leave regulations. She received response to her application that as per the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.419 of 2007 the definition "information" cannot include within its fold answers to the question as to "why" a particular thing was done or not done. In other words, the information sought could not be reasons as to "why" a certain act was done or not done. It is the petitioner's contention that despite her reply dated 21st July, 2011 calling upon respondent No.6 to withdraw the office memorandum it had not been withdrawn. The petitioner thereafter proceeded to pursue the non-
implementation of CCL by AAI with the AAI authorities.
15. In July, 2012, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1521 of 2012 relating to non-implementation of the CCL since her requests had not elicited any response. On 24 th June, 2013, this Court passed an 12/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw order in the said Writ Petition directing respondent No.1, namely AAI to take a decision by 31st August, 2013. On 30th August, 2013 the respondents filed affidavit in reply stating that the demand of CCL was not agreed to by AAI at a meeting of the Joint Consultative Machinery and representatives of Airports Authority Employees Union.
Thereafter, the DGN (HR) vide its letter dated 28 th September, 2012 had also informed the concerned persons that the matter relating to CCL was examined and has not been acceded to.
16. Although there was a specific direction by the order of this Court dated 24th June, 2013 that respondent No.1 must take a decision on this aspect by 31st August, 2013, we are constrained to observe that they have filed an affidavit dated 30th August, 2013 and stating that the decision on this aspect had already been taken in June, 2012. The order dated 24th June, 2013 is clear inasmuch as, the respondent No.1 was to consider the issue on adopting CCL by 31st August, 2013 obviously without reference to the purported petition of June, 2012.
Had it been otherwise, the respondents would have clearly relied upon the decision taken in June, 2012 at the hearing Writ Petition No.1521 of 2012. On 23rd September, 2013 when the matter was listed, the aforesaid petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition with references to the additional information gathered by the Petitioner.
13/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 :::wp2518-13.sxw
17. Be that as it may, the petitioner contends that denial of CCL and deduction of the entire salary without prior intimation and issuance of memorandum in July, 2011 are under challenge in the present petition. It is the petitioner's case that respondent No.1 being a public sector undertaking, it is bound to implement all the special provisions for women and children made by the Central Government as declared in DoPT OM. That the respondents cannot pick and choose to implement only one paragraph of the DoPT OM. The petitioner had proceeded on leave after having submitted her application 11 days before. Respondent No.2 had failed to return the leave application with any noting on it and that as per regulation 10(3) of AAI Leave Regulation, 2003, if a leave application is refused or not processed within seven days period as contemplated, it is deemed to be granted.
Regulations read as under:-
"10. Grant of and Return from leave-
(1) Application for leave - Any application for leave or for extension of leave and Joining Report shall be made in prescribed form annexed to the Regulations to the Competent Authority to grant leave.
(2) Maintenance of leave account - A leave account shall be maintained properly and up to date in the prescribed form 14/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw annexed to the regulations for each employee of the Authority by the officer authorized in this behalf. He should countersign every entry in the leave account.
(3) Employee should apply leave in advance - Except in emergency, application for leave for 3 (three) days or more on grounds other than on medical grounds shall be submitted to the authority competent to grant leave in the prescribed form annexed to the Regulations at least 7 (seven) days before the date from which the leave is required."
18. We are unable to agree that said leave applied for should be deemed to have been granted. There is nothing in Regulation 10 which supports this contention of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, an affidavit has been filed of Assistant Manager (HR), wherein it is contended that the impugned intra office note is not malicious and thus, the Central Civil Services Leave Rules, including CCL cannot be applied to AAI and cannot be demanded as of right and in no circumstances an employee can proceed on leave without the approval of the leave sanctioning authority.
19. It is contended that for the three days casual leave availed of by the petitioner on from 21 st to 23rd February, 2011, the petitioner had not obtained leave sanction from the competent authority and she 15/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw got the meeting re-scheduled at New Delhi postponed and proceeded on leave. That she ought not to have acted on the basis of hearsay and applied for CCL and proceed on leave without the policy decision being taken by the AAI. That she absented herself without prior approval and her application seeking CCL had been forwarded to H.R. section for consideration and that her application could not be considered since no such provision is available in AAI. It is further contended that respondent No.2 had never recommended the leave of the petitioner and that the remark on her application to that effect was a clerical mistake by the H.R. section.
20. The petitioner has in her rejoinder denied these contentions and highlighted the fact that respondents had no explanation as to why respondent No.2 did not process the petitioner's leave application dated 1st March, 2011 till 15th March, 2011 and why he failed to send a copy of his intra office note dated 15 th March, 2011 to the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that respondents are behaving in a high handed and over bearing manner and displaying inconsiderate behaviour. The respondents have remained silent on the right of disabled children. Respondent No.2 did not return her leave application refusing to grant leave and no explanation was offered not to return the application, till she proceeded on leave and thereafter, 16/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw issued an intra-office note.
21. We have heard the parties at length. The petitioner has in the course of her submissions relied upon the AAI Act, 1994 as amended by the amendment of 2003 and in particular section 40(1) thereof, which is reproduced below:-
"40 (1) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Authority shall, in the discharge of its functions and duties under this Act, be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing it from time to time."
The petitioner has also relied upon section 40(2) which provides that the decision of the Central Government whether a question is one of policy or not shall be final.
22. It is the petitioner's case that DoPT OM being a matter of policy, AAI shall be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing from time to time. She contends that the issuance of the DoPT OM constitutes a direction from the Central Government. The question, therefore, that falls for consideration is, whether the Central Government has in fact issued 17/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw any such directions to respondent No.1 to implement the provisions of the DoPT OM. In this behalf, it is material to note that the intra office note dated 9/13th February, 2012 set out in paragraph 2 that AAI being a public sector undertaking and it is governed by its own set of rules and regulations and it is not mandatory to implement all the rules / regulations prevailing in Central Government of India.
23. In our view the Central Government has not issued any directives to AAI to implement or adopt the provisions of DoPT OM and respondent No.1 is not obliged to do so unless the Central Government has given instructions to adopt the same as contemplated under section 40(1). The proviso to section 40(1) reads as under:-
" Provided that the Authority shall, as far as practicable, be given opportunity to express its view before any direction is given under this sub-section."
The proviso, therefore, makes it amply clear that the prior to any direction to be given by the Central Government in respect of the question of policy, respondent No.1 is to be given an opportunity to express its views. These events have not taken place and the process of implementation of DoPT OM can only be considered mandatory after the Central Government issues such directions on the question of such policy. Not having done so, the petitioner appears to have proceeded 18/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw on the basis of a misconception that the provisions of DoPT OM were applicable without having verified from the authority competent to sanction leave or other Human Resource personnel.
24. We are of the view that in having relied upon merely on hearsay, attributed to friends and colleagues the petitioner met at CHQ, AAI after the meeting with the Director, MOCA at Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, New Delhi on 28th February, 2011, the respondents cannot be faulted.
In paragraph 10 of the petition, the petitioner states as follows:-
"10. She was informed by them that the AAI Board Members had cleared the file regarding implementation of all the paragraphs of DoPT No.13018/2/2008-Estt,(L) dt. 11 Sep. 2008, including the new provision of Child Care Leave, with retrospective effect from 1 Sep 2008."
The petitioner had not obviously verified whether in fact the DoPT OM had been adopted in its entirety before applying for leave on the basis of information she received from friends.
25. As it transpires from the record evidenced by a communication dated 9th March, 2011, only paragraph (c) of the DoPT OM pertaining to maternity leave was adopted by AAI. The other paragraphs were not so adopted. This factual aspect of adoption of the 19/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw provisions of DoPT OM to a limited extent ought to have been verified by the petitioner before applying for leave on the presumption the entire DoPT OM had been so adopted. It is not the petitioner's case that she made inquiries with the competent authority and the competent authority held out any such representation to her that the entire DoPT OM has been adopted. She appears to have proceeded, unfortunately, on the basis that the information she received from her friends was correct.
26. Adverting to the subsequent developments, namely, her grievance relating to the fact that the leave sanctioning authority had not sanctioned her leave, the petitioner's contention that by virtue of regulation 10(3) of the Leave Regulations, she had not received any confirmation or refusal of leave pursuant to her application made and it was presumed that the leave was sanctioned, does not find support in the regulations. The relevant portion of regulation 10 are reproduced above. Our attention is not invited to any specific provision which can lead an employee to believe that the leave applied for is deemed to be granted if no communication is received either sanctioning or declining the leave request. If indeed such a provision was in existence by way of this regulation or office memorandum clarifications, it could have been possible to hold in favour of the petitioner on this aspect.
20/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 :::wp2518-13.sxw However, once again, the petitioner proceeded on the misconceived notion that leave is deemed to have been granted. The Petitioner's contention is not well founded.
27. The fact that DoPT OM was partially adopted was made known by the Corporate HRM Circular No.12/11 which is annexed to the petition at page No.141. It is issued on 9 th March, 2011. The petitioner's leave application is dated 1st March, 2011 for leave of 61 days with effect from 14th March, 2011.
ig Had she pursued her application for leave and sought specific approval she would have been informed that the leave could not be sanctioned on the basis of paragraph (c) of DoPT OM. The clarification was also issued by the Executive Director (HR) in corporate circular No.12/11 only on 9 th March, 2011 and therefore, till 9th March, 2011 there was no question of her leave being sanctioned or refused since the sanctioning authority, namely, respondent No.2 himself was unaware of the same.
28. At best, assuming in favour of the petitioner, the circular issued by respondent No.3 could not become available earlier than 9 th March, 2011 a Wednesday. It left approximately only two days for communication about the process of application after the applicability of DoPT OM. Even assuming that respondent No.3 communicated the same to respondent No.2 on 9th March, 2011 itself, 12th & 13th March, 21/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw 2011 were Saturday and Sunday and from 14th March, 2011 the petitioner was on leave. There is nothing to suggest that respondents had not taken steps to consider her request. In the reply, the respondents have stated that under regulation 10(4) (b) no employee should leave place of station without permission of the competent authority. In the present case, such permission had not been granted and the petitioner's application was awaiting consideration.
29. In the circumstances, the fact that the petitioner proceeded on leave without sanction cannot be disputed. However, as it transpires even this will yet not justify the action taken by the respondents in directing her pay to be stopped completely in view of the fact that even after the impugned directive dated 5th July, 2011 issued by respondent No.2, her leave application was considered by respondents and in a communication dated 30th May, 2011 issued by the Deputy General Manager (HR), ANS to respondent No.6, the Regional Executive Director, AAI, Western Region, it was stated that until a concrete decision is taken in the matter, it is advised to adjust the leave of the petitioner by granting her earned leave or any other leave.
30. In compliance therewith, the petitioner made a revised application on 30th May, 2011 for leave as half pay leave. Accordingly, she was granted half pay leave for a period of 61 days with 22/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw recommendations of GM (ATC), western region. By a memorandum dated 15th July, 2011 an explanation was sought from the petitioner for proceeding on leave without prior sanction. It was replied on 21 st July, 2011 refuting the allegations and contending that she was being harassed. It appears that after receiving her reply, no further action has been taken.
31. On behalf of the Respondents, Mr. Khaire and Mr.Shetty submitted that being a senior level officer, she should have applied only as per the existing AAI leave regulations and that action taken by the competent authority against the petitioner for her willful absence without sufficient ground is fair and justified. The fact remains that her leave though not sanctioned was subsequently directed to be treated as half pay leave.
32. We find that half pay leave having been sanctioned, it is in the fitness of things the petitioner could have been given the benefit of doubt and the penalty imposed on the petitioner of stopping her pay does not appear to be justified. It is also not possible to fault the issuance of the intra office note dated 15th March, 2011 and the memorandum dated 15th July, 2011. In view of the provisions of Section 40 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, it is not possible 23/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw for this Court to issue any directions to respondents to implement paragraph (b) & (c) of the DoPT OM. It is clear that the statute provides for the Central Government to issue such policy decision and direction to the respondents to implement.
33. Bringing up children is a delicate task which are efficiently and emotionally better handled by mothers. The Central Government in its wisdom has thought it fit to offer several facilities of leave to working mothers in cases as set out in the DoPT OM to alleviate the difficulties faced by working mothers of children including those with children with special needs. The emotional support that such children need at times finds recognition in the said DoPT OM. It is true that the Respondent no,1 has not adopted the provisions of the DoPT OM however, the DoPT OM represents a women and child welfare provision that should be given due importance and the Petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the Central Government in this behalf to issue directions/suggestions for inclusion of paragraphs (b) & (c) in the provisions of AAI (Leave) Rules, 2003 in accordance with the provisions of Section 40 of the AAI Act.
34. Half pay leave having been sanctioned, there does not appear to be any justification for continuing with any inquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned intra office note dated 15 th March, 24/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw 2011 and memorandum dated 15th July, 2011.
35. As regards the other reliefs, there is no warrant for direction for payment of any compensation. As far as the plain allegations of harassment are concerned, these cannot be gone into by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.
36. In the present set of facts no further interference is warranted. The petitioner will no doubt have appropriate remedy to redress her grievance through the existing mechanism and without seeking the assistance of the Court. In regard to the petitioner's prayer for giving reasons for administrative and quasi-judicial decisions in according with the RTI Act, reliance placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court by the respondents in 1Dr. Celsa Pinto V/s. Goa State Information Commissioner & Anr. holds the field and it is not possible to direct disclosure of reasons "why" a particular policy decision has been taken or not taken. The petitioner has contended that Court was wrong in stating that justifications cannot be classified as information while deciding Writ Petition No.419 of 2007. The said order has attained finality and holds the field. The petitioner is therefore, not entitled to reasons for the same. Needless to mention that none of these observations will affect the petitioner's right 1 2008 (4) Mh. L.J. 822 25/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 ::: wp2518-13.sxw representation to the Central Government as aforesaid.
37. In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b).
We also consider it appropriate in the circumstances that the present petition be treated as the petitioners representation to the Central Government to consider issuing appropriate directions to the Respondent no.1 to implement the provisions of the DoPT OM dated 11th September 2011, Exhibit "C" to the Petition. Since the Petitioner appears in person, the Advocates for the Respondents shall forward a true copy of the petition along with a copy of this judgment to the appropriate persons in the concerned ministry so that the issue receives the attention it deserves. A copy of such communication shall be provided to the Petitioner. No order as to costs.
(A.K. MENON, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 26/26 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:49:20 :::